Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Points of Order

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There have been enormous and tragic developments since last Friday's debate on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Have you had any indication from the Government that, given the events of the past week, they plan to come to the House to make a statement about allowing extra time for that Bill to be given a proper Report stage? I understand that such an indication could have been made, and I should be grateful if you could say whether that is correct.

Madam Speaker: I have had no indication from the Government of any statement that they are likely to make on that matter at this stage.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry not to have given you notice of my point of order, which involves a correction to the Official Report for 11 May that is of some importance. In line 22 of column 386 it is reported:
Because a Committee of 60"—
the Deregulation Committee—
cannot cover every interest".—[Official Report, 11 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 386.]
It is a typographical error—the figure should be 16—but it makes a great deal of difference. Could it be noted?

Madam Speaker: It does make a great difference, and I am sure that it will be noted in the correct quarters.

Mr. Alan Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, on the Report stage of a private Member's Bill—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—the Order Paper was deluged with 80 new clauses and amendments. Today, on the Report stage of another private Member's Bill—the Tobacco Advertising Bill—there are, I believe, more than 100 new clauses and amendments. Although we are all familiar with the fact that opponents of a Bill take advantage of the procedural opportunities available to them, and although they are entitled, formally at least, to use those procedural opportunities, I submit that that is not a responsible or respectable way for the House to do its business.
I therefore invite you, Madam Speaker, as the custodian of good order, to invite the Procedure Committee, whose Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is in the House today, to consider whether in future the debate of a private Member's Bill on Second Reading should be timetabled. That would ensure that the House had an opportunity to debate the proposals fully and to reach a conclusion. If we fail to do that, we bring Parliament into disrepute and fail in our duties as legislators.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have set down on today's Order Paper a question in the following terms:
To ask the Lord President of the Council how many amendments for consideration at the Report stage of the Tobacco Advertising Bill have been drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel; and on whose instructions such amendments were drafted.
That question need not be answered until noon today or afterwards, by which time amendments will have been debated without our knowing whether any of the amendments on the Order Paper are, in truth, Government amendments to the Bill. Clearly it would be helpful to the House to have that information this morning. I hope that the Leader of the House can be persuaded to help us, especially in view of the odious treatment last Friday of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and all that has followed since.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that the Energy Conservation Bill faced 216 amendments and new clauses, all of which—this was not denied by the Government at the time—were drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and tabled on identical sheets of paper produced by that office.
I have written to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee asking whether that Committee will look at the development of what I regard as a new Government tactic in relation to private Members' Bills. The Government table no—or hardly any—amendments in Committee, thereby depriving hon. Members of the opportunity to use the Committee stage for detailed consideration of Bills. They save all the amendments and deluge the House with them on Report, with no object other than to delay the Bill.
Is it possible for you, Madam Speaker, to state that you would find it helpful if the Procedure Committee considered the matter that I put to it?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall not make much progress today.

Mr. John Carlisle: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), Madam Speaker, which related to who had tabled the amendments and the new clauses, and whether they were Government-inspired or drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel. It would perhaps be helpful to you to know that myself and my hon. Friends tabled those amendments without any help from—indeed, I might say, with the hindrance of—the Department of Health. The Department gave me no assistance whatsoever.
If it is helpful, I can give you, Madam Speaker, a categorical assurance that all of the amendments and new clauses in my name—and, I believe, those of my hon. Friends, although they may speak for themselves—are totally of my own volition. Of course, they were drafted with the assistance of others from outside this place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is quite usual. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), whose Bill it is, admitted in Committee that he had received considerable help from Action on Smoking and Health and others. At no time did


the Government give myself or any of my hon. Friends any assistance whatsoever in drafting the amendments and new clauses.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Would not it help in the consideration of the good reputation of this House, and to absolve the House and hon. Members of any accusations that they might have acted in any way improperly, if all hon. Members who speak in the debate make absolutely clear—beyond the House's normal declaration of interest —any consideration which they may have outside, and declare whether they have made financial gain in the past, or are likely to do so in the future, for themselves or their party from the tobacco industry?

Madam Speaker: The Tobacco Advertising Bill is an important Bill. Hon. Members who raise points of order which are really matters for debate are holding up the proceedings on the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have heard a point of order from the hon. Gentleman, and quite a long one at that, and other hon. Members are on their feet.
I caution hon. Members that I am not asking for explanations or statements. If hon. Members wish to raise points of order with which I can deal, I am ready to respond and the House will be happy to hear what I have to say. However, hon. Members are delaying the proceedings on the Bill with points of order.

Hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The House is insisting on continuing with points of order. There are six hon. Members on their feet.

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) asked whether any amendments had been drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel. He also asked whether the information could be provided before the conclusion of the debate this morning.
Last Friday, it was denied that there had been any involvement by Parliamentary Counsel—until ten minutes after the debate ended, when we received a written communication pointing out that all 80 amendments had been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. It is in the interests of the House that we should be told this morning who drafted the amendments.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is repeating the point made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and I voted for it last week. However, is not there a dangerous illiberality in the House? Hon. Members may be inhibited from speaking today—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into debate, and I am seeking from him a point of

order for me. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I must listen to it. I do not want to get into debate at this stage.

Mr. Greenway: I ask you, Madam Speaker, not to condone—I am sure you would not—any illiberality in the House. Hon. Members have the right to speak, as they have done previously. I have been here when important Bills were scuppered by hon. Members sitting where the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sits. Then, a small number of people scuppered Bills about which the House was passionate.

Madam Speaker: That was very robust, but the Speaker cannot control what hon. Members have to say—they can say what they want.

Ms Liz Lynne: Further to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), Madam Speaker. May we know before the close of business how many amendments were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel? I know that the matter has been raised before, but I think that it is important.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that your office would be able to identify at least one precedent, and perhaps many others, when the Labour party was in government—for example, the Protection of Children Bill in 1977, which I took some part in preparing—and went to considerable lengths to table sheets of amendments to destroy the Bill. I think that the matter ought to be put into perspective, because the Labour party acted in a similar manner when it was in government.

Madam Speaker: That was barely a point of order for me, and it was a total waste of the House's time.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Had there been a business statement yesterday, I would have asked the Leader of the House what intention he and the Government had regarding the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, in view of the motion that was passed two Fridays ago which gave instructions to the Government to provide additional time for the Bill.
In answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who talked about scuppering Bills, let me make it plain that I never used Parliamentary Counsel—Government or otherwise—to help me. What I did I did up front; and, what is more, I never tabled one amendment. My actions were straightforward; anyone could see where I was coming from. On the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the Tories were hiding behind—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a time for an explanation of votes and amendments. We have business before us which we need to get on with.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may not be to your knowledge, but I understand that the tobacco industry and the Department of Health have been engaged in their normal negotiations on the subject of tobacco advertising. They have, to a large extent, reached an agreement, but it was reached only in the late hours of yesterday evening. In the circumstances, it would be hypocritical of the Department


of Health to support the Bill. On the one hand, they are reaching a voluntary agreement with the industry, while, on the other—

Madam Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: It has.

Madam Speaker: Order. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman must raise those matters in debate, and I refuse to allow him to go on with his point of order.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: rose—

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat: I am on my feet.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I say seriously to the hon. Gentleman that he is raising interesting points which the House will want to hear at the appropriate time. However, they are not points of order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain himself and to use the information in the debate. He is not raising a point of order.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I had not finished.

Madam Speaker: Order. If there is a point of order for me, I must listen to it, but I do not want an argument.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: It is a substantive matter, and I had not reached my point of order. I was simply painting the scene.
In circumstances in which the Department of Health feels obliged to seek to amend the Bill, will you, Madam Speaker, accept amendments today on this important matter in the light of what took place last night? I apologise if I did not get to the point earlier.

Madam Speaker: I am not aware of what took place last night.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is likely to return to the Floor of the House next Friday, but it is only third on the list. Is there any way in which you, knowing the feelings of hon. Members and of the public, could speak with the Chairman of the Procedure

Committee and the Department of Social Security to ensure that adequate time is given and that we do not have any false amendments tabled this time?

Madam Speaker: Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point raised by the hon. Lady, as will the whole House. I can make no further comment at this stage.
As for the questions about amendments which may or may not have been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, under our procedure answers to questions on any issue are not available until 12 o'clock today. If we are allowed to proceed with the debate, that could be perhaps one of the first questions which could be put to the Minister.
The hon. Member for Kingswood and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised the important issue of the Procedure Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the initiative of writing to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who happens to be in the House at present. He undoubtedly heard what the hon. Member for Kingswood had to say, and will also be aware of the feeling of the House.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Madam Speaker: There need not be any response from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He is well aware of the feelings of the House this morning on the subject.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is different, but I am sure that it is a point of order. Can you confirm for the benefit of the House, especially hon. Members who are present this morning, that all the amendments which appear on the amendment paper are in order?

Madam Speaker: All the amendments that have been selected are certainly in order.

BILL PRESENTED

FIREARMS (AMDT)

Mr. Michael Shersby presented a Bill to create a new offence of possessing a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence; to apply certain provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 to imitation firearms; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

Orders of the Day — Tobacco Advertising Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. After so many points of order, I regret asking you to deal with a completely fresh point of order. We have your list of selection of amendments for this morning. When I first saw it, I thought that there had been a typographical error in so far as none of the new clauses had been selected. Of course, I understand that you have absolute discretion in what shall be discussed, but I must ask you why none of the new clauses has been selected, especially new clause 3, which stands in my name.
New clause 3 calls for a report from the Secretary of State for Health on any voluntary agreement which may be either in negotiation or signed between the Department and the industry. I understand that the matter was not discussed at any stage in Committee. It seems to be a substantial and important new clause. Indeed, this morning would perhaps allow the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to make a statement on the state of negotiations with the industry as reached late last night.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. New clause 3 goes to the heart of the Bill because it raises the question whether we should proceed by voluntary agreement. That is a philosophical point, and it is the reason why I oppose the Bill. I simply wonder whether there is any other group of amendments on which we might raise the subject of voluntary agreements because it is central to what we are talking about. The Government are in the midst of negotiating a voluntary agreement—apparently, they finished their negotiations last night—so it is absolutely central to the Bill.

Mr. John Carlisle: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no need for a further point of order. The House should already know that the Speaker never gives reasons for the non-selection of new clauses or amendments. However, the hon. Gentlemen who have raised points of order might look at the new clause again and see whether they feel that it is consistent with the Bill as it passed through the House on Second Reading. That is the only response that I shall give.

Clause 1

PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS

Sir Trevor Skeet: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 1, line 7, at end insert
'and for the purposes of this section, an advertisement shall not be deemed to have been published if it is comprised in or enclosed with a card, letter or other document sent by a person to one or more persons'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 78, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'specific tobacco product', and insert

'tobacco product manufactured or supplied by a person so engaged'.

No. 79, in page 2, line 7, leave out from first
'the' to end of line 7.

No. 18, in page 2, line 9, after 'engaged', insert
'or to persons or bodies representing those so engaged'.

No. 95, in page 2, line 12, after 'name', insert
'(in a format different from the format of their name as used in any advertisement for a tobacco product prior to the coming into force of this Act)'.

No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—'or
(iii) was displayed in or on items of stationery and office or manufacturing equipment for the primary purpose of indicating the source or ownership of such items'.

No. 17, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—'or
(iii) was contained in a directory of business information published by a person not so engaged'.

No. 28, in page 2, line 13, at end, insert—'or
(iii) was comprised in a sign upon or indicating the location of the registered office or other premises of a person so engaged'.

No. 23, in page 2, line 19, leave out '(i)'.

No. 22, in page 2, leave out lines 21 to 25.

No. 98, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'had been' and insert
'could reasonably be expected to have been'.

No. 99, in page 2, line 26, leave out from 'production' to second 'of' in line 27.

No. 16, in page 3, line 26, after 'communication', insert 'to the public'.

No. 107, in page 3, line 26, leave out from 'which' to
'the' in line 27 and insert 'promotes'.

No. 30, in page 3, line 27, leave out from 'product' to 'whether' in line 28.

No. 29, in page 3, line 29, after first 'of', insert 'or contained within'.

No. 42, in page 3, line 30, leave out 'retail'.

No. 57, in page 3, line 34, leave out from
'product' to end of line 34.

No. 85, in page 3, line 44, leave out from 'advertisement' to 'is' in line 45.

No. 43, in page 3, line 45, leave out 'or similar to'.

No. 86, in page 3, line 46, leave out from 'feature' to 'which' in line 47.

No. 60, in page 3, line 47, leave out 'is associated with' and insert
'prior to the coming into force of this Act, has been used for the advertisement of'.

No. 11, in page 4, line 7, at end add—
'(10) For the avoidance of doubt, the communication of words delivered orally only in a context in which no advertisement for a tobacco product is intended including words so delivered in a radio or television programme, shall not be treated as such an advertisement'.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am a little perturbed by the Government's attitude. I would have thought that it was crucial to understanding the Bill, and certainly to many of the penalties involved and some of the offences involved, that the Government gave certain backing to hon. Members who will be making arguments. However, I am afraid that we have had none of it.
The Government's standing is unique. The revenue to the Government is £8.5 billion per year. The employment provided is more than 11,000, but overall it is about 150,000.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It is 10,000.

Sir Trevor Skeet: If we take those people engaged directly and indirectly in the industry, it comes out at about 150,000. Retail sales come to the enormous figure of £10 billion per annum.
I thought that the Government would have moved to do something to protect their involvement, particularly because a voluntary agreement has been negotiated. I do not know whether the agreement has been accepted but I assume that it has. If so, what will be the Government's understanding of it? Why does not the Minister spring to his feet and tell the House the exact position before we commence debate on these technical amendments?

Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because he has immediately put his finger on the pulse of what the Bill is all about. He is right to express some disappointment that Her Majesty's Government—we understand that they have concluded a voluntary agreement—Aid not announce it before the Bill. Of course, that might have made some of the amendments that we tabled a little superfluous. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Will he bear in mind that the voluntary agreement should have been announced before today's proceedings so we might have been better informed?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am patient, but I ask the Minister once again to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether an agreement with the industry has been reached. It will be the 11th agreement since 1971. If so—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We are discussing the amendment. I do not think that the Government's policy and any agreement reached last night or at any other time have anything whatever to do with it.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I appreciate that, but we have had several points of order on the issue. It is difficult to argue even technical points on the Bill if we do not know the state of arrangements on which the whole matter is being debated today.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy S peaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) suggesting that he does not want to move his amendment?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I intend to move the amendment. I was simply saying to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the matter had been raised earlier and I thought that it was an opportunity that I should take—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a long experience in the House. I am sure that he does not need the Chair to tell him any more that we are now discussing the amendment, and he should relate his remarks to it.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged. I shall introduce amendment No. 39 in this way. Clause 1 of the Bill says:
Subject to the following provisions of this section, if any person publishes or causes to be published through advertisement for a tobacco product, he shall be guilty of an offence.
The Bill is replete with offences and I shall consider some of the penalties involved in it. However, we should add at the end of the clause the words:
and for the purposes of this section, an advertisement shall not be deemed to have been published if it is comprised in or enclosed with a card, letter or other document sent by a person to one or

other persons".
It was fairly obvious from the start that that is one of the omissions from the Bill.
Before we consider the matter in a little detail, I refer hon. Members to clause 7, which says:
In this section, 'advertisement for a tobacco product' includes any form of communication".
If it is any form of communication, it may be not merely an advertisement but a letter or a video.

Mr. Kevin Barron: As the promoter of the Bill, I shall explain briefly to the hon. Gentleman that the reason why the clause would never have been accepted is that it is one of those areas that is trying to get to young children in terms of encouraging them to use tobacco products. I have a press cutting from the Express and Echo, which is an Exeter paper, which says that a worried father has been left fuming after his 11–year-old daughter was specially selected in a tobacco company promotion which came through the door in an envelope.
The Bill is about stopping tobacco companies from getting to young people and encouraging them to use tobacco products. There is no way that I, or anyone with any sense who is concerned about public health, would accept an amendment to the Bill which would allow that type of promotion to continue and to get to our young children in the way that it did in Exeter.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but he assumes that everyone is evil and that the industry is not responsible. Since 1971, the industry has negotiated at least 11 revisions of a voluntary arrangement. In the United Kingdom, despite the absence of a ban, tobacco consumption has fallen almost year by year by 30 per cent. That is not evidence of irresponsibility. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that there is much legislation on the subject. There is the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 and, to my knowledge and concern, we have the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991.
10 am
Children concern us all. I have children, and the hon. Gentleman and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may have children, and all are involved in this issue. There is a voluntary arrangement, the content of which I do not know, and the Bill seeks to place further stress by insisting that there may not be communications inviting children to smoke.

Ms Angela Eagle: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of advertising material aimed at children which goes through the letterbox personally addressed to them? Is that the implication of his amendments? If not, what practical steps does he suggest to prevent that from happening? The hon. Gentleman is seeking to weaken the Bill by allowing such communications to continue.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The amendment does not do that. There are two ways to deal with the subject. One is by legislation, and that is the route that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has chosen, but his Bill deals excessively with the subject. The other way is by voluntary agreement, and that agreement covers the point in great detail.

Mr. Nigel Forman: My hon. Friend has the makings of an important point if he can establish that the tobacco industry, the cigarette industry, is


prepared to conclude a binding voluntary agreement to prevent that sort of direct communication. Does my hon. Friend have such evidence?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I have a document entitled "Voluntary Agreement on Tobacco Products, Advertising and Promotions and Health Warnings". It is dated September 1991 and was revised on 1 January 1992. The first part of the document covers advertising and promotion and the document deals with cinemas, expenditure on posters and places where posters may not be raised, such as in school playgrounds. If it is suggested that there has been abuse, that is for the judiciary to deal with: it is not a matter that requires the Bill.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My hon. Friend refers to a document which I do not have. He said that it was dated 1991 and was revised in 1992. If that is effective, why do we see the sort of advertising to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has alluded? Many of us are concerned that voluntary agreements do not seem to be working and that tobacco companies are encouraging our children and grandchildren to smoke. They have been advertising particularly outside schools, and that is outrageous.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Legislation is one thing and its abuse is another. If the legislation is not enforced, it should be. Many of these points will be taken into account by the Minister who has produced a new agreement. It will contain even more strict regulations to ensure that children are not caught by such advertising.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has virtually accused the tobacco industry of offering direct mailshots to children. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is patent nonsense because such advertising is totally banned by the voluntary agreement. Does my hon. Friend accept that mistakes occasionally occur in direct mailings? The hon. Member for Rother Valley may have been exhorted by his local Conservative party to subscribe because he is in the A or B socio-economic group in his area and should therefore be voting Conservative. Errors will obviously occur, and the hon. Member for Rother Valley mentioned one and highlighted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is a long intervention. I will not allow long interventions.

Sir Trevor Skeet: We are all involved and we all make mistakes—that is one of the characteristics of our society.
I spoke about the 1992 agreement. I regret that I do not have the modern agreement before me. The rules say that the companies must not advertise to persuade people to start smoking; they must not use advertisements that will persuade people to smoke to excess; and they must not exploit those who are specially vulnerable, and that includes young people or those who are immature or who have a physical, social or mental handicap. They must not imply that smoking is healthy, that it is a great recreation, proof of manliness or enhances feminine charm—[Interruption.] It might improve feminine charm.
The document is one of the most comprehensive that we have, and if people appreciated its content they would

come to an entirely different conclusion. It would persuade the Bill's promoter to recognise that legislation is unnecessary and that the aim can be achieved by voluntary agreement.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I should like to proceed because I want to be economic with my time. I do not want to speak at great length, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is because the voluntary agreement has not been complied with regularly and consistently that legislation is required? There is no redress through the voluntary agreement.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The voluntary agreement is monitored by an independent body which will make recommendations to the Secretary of State. That is why there were 11 different agreements, each of which brought in certain changes. The idea is that, when a weakness is found, a modification, which may be an improvement, is introduced. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) has got it wrong when he tries to blame the tobacco industry and the people involved for not enforcing the agreement. That is the job of the judiciary and of the people who have the job of enforcing the agreement.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me for a second time. He says that this is a comprehensive voluntary agreement. Does he not agree that, on the evidence of our own eyes and our experience, and on the contents of the factual briefing that has been provided to us, this comprehensive voluntary agreement has been comprehensively ignored?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I certainly do not accept that. It is quite wrong to suggest that the agreement has been comprehensively ignored. There are two big companies in the industry. Gallaher has—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be attempting to discuss new clause 3, which has not been selected.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Of course I shall abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: No; I should like to proceed. I have shown that my amendment is important.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend should not be too enthusiastic.
One of the clauses states that any form of communication will be an advertisement. That provision is so wide that it will exclude everything except packaging for retail sale. The communication by way of direct mail between manufacturers and any smoker falls under the definition of an advertisement. That is the only reasonable way in which a tobacco company, manufacturer or person engaged in the business can communicate with people who already smoke.
I am quite certain that, when the hon. Member for Rother Valley examines more carefully the Bill and what


I have to say, he will come to the conclusion that that is one of the mistakes that he is making. His Bill is full of provisions about fines and so forth. One has only to refer to another clause in the Bill to see that.
I think that it should be stressed that we are dealing with amendments to make it possible for people to say that they are complying with the law. But when one finds a level of penalties on summary conviction on scale 5, and on indictment for two years, let me tell the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to keep intervening, but the points that the hon. Gentleman is making can be discussed on later groups of amendments. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the amendments that are being discussed.

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are 23 amendments in this group, and they range very widely. I am surprised that the Chair should be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will check the amendments, he will find that they are not about penalties.

Sir Trevor Skeet: It is a small technical point and I commend it to the hon. Member for Rother Valley. I hope that he will be prudent enough to accept it, because it is one that should be avoided.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the restriction, which would be accompanied by an offence, on sending, in the terms of the amendment,
a card, letter or other document
which would help people to be better informed about what is going on between the manufacturers and the receiver of that communication, may well include, for example, something that would tell them about what they should avoid as well as what they should do? Furthermore, does he accept that any attempt to restrict that would involve necessarily by way of enforcement the opening of letters to prove that that offence had occurred, which, in the absence of my hon. Friend's provision, effectively would be a very dangerous interference with the liberty of the subject?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, as that reinforces and completes the point that I was making.
My amendment No. 42, in page 3, line 30, proposes to leave out "retail". I do not know whether the hon. Member for Rother Valley recognises that he perpetrated a fault by the use of certain quantities. They must be of a certain size. Clause 1(7) refers to
packing of such a product in a quantity normally available for retail sale".
If we were to remove "retail", I think that it would make a little more sense.
There are other quantities, including wholesale cartons for cash-and-carry sale, discount at discount clubs and warehouses, not simply those in the normal quantities that are available for resale. I should have thought that he would have considered that and allowed the amendment to be included. It would be an improvement to his Bill.
10.15 am
I now move to amendment No. 85, in page 3, line 44, because I am moving at some speed to accommodate the wishes of the House. It sets out a series of considerations that must be taken into account such as symbols and colour. The purple that one associates with a certain

company's advertising is well known, but it may have many products for sale. Simply because a symbol or colour is used in a particular context does not mean that it is promoting tobacco products. I think that that should be altered.

Mr. Flynn: Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the conduct of tobacco companies in Hungary, where tobacco advertising is banned but where companies, particularly Marlboro and Camel, get around the prohibition by using precisely the same colours and logos to advertise other products? That is a way round a much-needed ban on tobacco advertising, yet we do not feel upset by the prospect of interfering with the sacred right of tobacco companies to kill 110,000 people a year.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am not aware of the law of Hungary on the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Many logos are not recommending the sale of tobacco or tobacco products. They might have different colours, but that does not make them unsaleable.
The important thing is that it is legal to sell tobacco. It is a legal product. My hon. Friend is saying that it should not be sold and in fact it should be banned. The limitation on the ban could be inexhaustible.

Mr. Leigh: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will deal more with the point about Hungary. I do not believe what I heard. It really is a case of "Big Brother is watching you". We are not going to ban advertising. We are going to say, "Well, Big Brother says that they are the same colours or the same language." The point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is an appalling one to make in a free society. It makes our view stronger than any other.

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: No.

Mr. Barron: Why not?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I have given way to so many hon. Members today. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is time that the House settled down.

Sir Trevor Skeet: How right you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is high time that it settled down and high time that I had an opportunity to conclude my—

Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Sir Trevor Skeet: In a moment.
People do not seem to realise that in countries where there have been bans, as with certain European countries, the experience has been disastrous, because the consumption of tobacco has not fallen. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, where there has been no ban, there has been a drastic fall of some 30 per cent. since 1971 to the current date. I think that that deals with the point about other countries.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen.

Mrs. Peacock: I wish to make my point before my hon. Friend leaves the question of associated advertising. He is


saying that the fact that some companies might use a particular colour does not have any effect. If that is correct, why has there been such an unholy row on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill about companies having own-branded products that are very similar to those with registered trade marks? If there is no association in colour, text and packaging, why are the supermarkets complaining?

Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend is perfectly right about that, but having an unholy row in this place is to be expected. It does not mean that there is much rationality behind it.
I now deal with amendment No. 17—

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: All right; I will make an exception.

Mr. Barron: In relation to the last mention of me that the hon. Gentleman made, he is wrong on two counts: first, I am not his hon. Friend; and, secondly, the Bill is not intended to ban the sale of tobacco.

Sir Trevor Skeet: It is a strange fact about Members of Parliament that they like to link themselves with many others—not merely on their own side of the House. However, if the hon. Gentleman does not want to be a friend of mine, I will exclude him for good—but I would hesitate to do that.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to add in page 2, line 13,
(iii) was contained in the directory of business information".
It was never intended to exclude that. That is only a technical point, and I ask the hon. Member for Rother Valley to consider it.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to leave out lines 21 to 25 in clause 1. Those words are extraordinary. They give as one of the defences in clause 1(4))(d)(ii) that
at any time of the publication constituting the alleged offence not more than 25 per cent. or 5,000 (whichever is the fewer) copies of which had been imported into the United Kingdom for publication there".
Who is to judge that? Who thought that one up? The Bill's originators simply plucked a figure out of the air. That is totally irrational. I plead with the hon. Gentleman—he is no longer my hon. Friend—to withdraw that part of the Bill, which does not make any sense. If he likes to spring to his feet and tell me what one is to construe from that, I shall be glad.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman refers to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who tried to withdraw a group of amendments when I started accepting them in Committee.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that we ought to have the opinion of the Chair. Even when an hon. Member has put his name to amendments, it is possible for him to change his mind during the course of the argument. Am I right in thinking that no rule or steadfast custom prevents hon. Members who have tabled amendments from subsequently disagreeing with them, even in a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not unknown for hon. Members to change their minds.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I apologise for speaking so long. I was attempting to improve the Bill by dealing with some of its technicalities, suggesting that a broad view be taken of them and arguing that certain of the Bill's faults be rectified. Apparently, the Bill's supporters want to bulldoze it through the House, which would be iniquitous. The Bill should be fully and properly considered.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I share my hon. Friend's impatience with quibbles over technicalities. We should be considering points of essential principle. Is not at the heart of our consideration the fact that tobacco kills 300 people each day and that the industry advertises to replenish the ranks of its victims? Since the majority of people who take up smoking are young, whatever may be the industry's protestations, its advertising must be pitched at young people.
My hon. Friend responded approvingly to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who put forward the case for freedom of expression. However, does my hon. Friend regard it as being within the bounds of freedom—in a decent, liberal society—to allow an institution to spend £100 million a year—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Following a previous long intervention, I informed the House that I would not tolerate another. Many hon. Members want to catch my eye, and some of them are making long interventions. I may bear that in mind.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I should say something on this point, although it is not strictly relevant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I must repeatedly rise to my feet to remind the experienced hon. Gentleman that he is meant to be speaking to a group of amendments. He must stick to them.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am much obliged. I feel that I have done justice to the amendments. I much regret that I cannot answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), but perhaps I shall be able to deal with his point on another occasion, with full force.
I make a final plea to the hon. Member for Rother Valley. If he is wise, he will take into account the fact that another side must be considered—that most of his arguments are wrong. It is for my hon. Friend the Minister to declare the nature of the voluntary arrangement so that the House may be informed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already intervened in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman on that very point. The House is discussing not what happened last night or what the Government may or may not decide, but a particular group of amendments.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am much obliged. I have had my say.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is happening in this Chamber today is a constitutional outrage. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We know, and I will prove, that Conservative Back Benchers tabled nearly 100 amendments paid for by the tobacco industry. I will show that the amendments that we are now debating—moved almost entirely by one hon. Member and supported by


three other hon. Members—have been arranged through a public relations company and parliamentary agents in central London.
The Tobacco Manufacturers Association is responsible for many of the amendments that we are discussing today and, in particular, that just moved by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet). Philip Moms is a member of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association and it is a client of Ian Greer Associates. Ian Greer is employed as an adviser to Philip Morris. The account principal at Ian Greer Associates is Simon Milton. Ian Greer introduced Philip Moms to Sharpe Pritchard, solicitors and parliamentary agents—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House seeks your guidance as to whether the aspersions cast against hon. Members are in order. That is obviously for you to judge. It is also for you to judge—having mildly chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) for moving off the amendments—whether the hon. Gentleman's remarks are in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). If he does not remain in order, he will be ruled out of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall endeavour to prove the motive of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North in tabling amendment No. 39, because that has some bearing on whether the House should be prepared to accept it.
Mr. H.M.V. Pritchard of Sharpe Pritchard was the solicitor responsible for organising the drafting of what were described to me as wrecking amendments in the trade. It is interesting that they all stand—

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it to be a new principle of the House that an hon. Member can speak in any way that he likes about another hon. Member's motives in tabling an amendment? I might speak on this and talk about a voluntary agreement. It is absurd. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is ranging way beyond the ambit of the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far, the hon. Member for Workington has been speaking to the amendments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Upstairs in the Public Bill Office, hon. Members can find a box containing all the amendments submitted by hon. Members, having been briefed by their own Whips and by parliamentary agents as to the merits of the amendments that they drafted.
What is interesting about the amendments—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is now casting further aspersions on the Government's Whips Office by suggesting that it colluded in the drafting of the amendments. Is the hon. Gentleman in order when he casts such aspersions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has not been out of order, and I can assure the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that I am listening closely.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is interesting about the amendments is that they are all characterised by a comment on the top left-hand corner of the amendment paper, which says
In Parliament in the Session 93–94.
Those of us who understand such matters—hon. Members should be doing their homework—know that that means that they were all drafted by parliamentary agents, although they may have been tabled by certain hon. Members. They were all drafted by the parliamentary agents to whom I referred.
10.30 am
The reality is that the amendments were the product of two meetings that were held at the Department of Health at the end of February and at the beginning of March. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) managed to establish that fact and, some months ago, he tabled a parliamentary question about them, because representatives of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association were present at those meetings when the tabling of amendments, if not their nature, was discussed. The purpose of that discussion was to ensure that parliamentary agents could properly understand the nature of the amendments that they were required to draft.

Mr. John Carlisle: I have been worried about the hon. Gentleman for a long time and obviously my concern is fully justified. Can he enlighten the House as to whether he knows of any consultations that his hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley had with the Department of Health about the Bill, and the clauses and amendments that his hon. Friend may have drafted, once he was successful in the ballot? Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) know whether his hon. Friend discussed the Bill with the Department of Health?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not relevant to my contribution. If that is the case, however, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will intervene to confirm that. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with such meetings. If my hon. Friend had them, he would have been doing his job, because he was obviously seeking the widest possible consultation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has gone far enough with his preliminary comments and he should now consider the amendments.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The basis of the allegations made seems to be that certain hon. Members have sought professional assistance from solicitors, parliamentary agents and other people outside the House to draft amendments. This important matter affects us all across the range of our parliamentary work. Would you confirm, for the purpose of removing any ambiguity, that, when trying to amend legislation, there is absolutely nothing wrong in obtaining professional advice, including that from lawyers, to ensure that any amendments that one tables are properly drafted and technically effective?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members are aware of the procedures and customs of the House. Before the hon. Member for Workington rises, let me repeat that the preliminaries are over and he must speak to the amendments.

Mr. Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware of what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington intended to say, but I can tell the House that I received a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health earlier this week, in which he stated:
Neither I nor any of my Ministerial colleagues nor any officials in the Department of Health have been involved in the preparation of any of the 108 amendments or 5 new clauses".
Will the Minister confirm that those amendments were discussed at the meetings in February and March with representatives of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association? If that is true, I should like a ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about whether that is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. Hon. Members know full well who drafted the amendments and it is a matter for them, not for me.

Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that those who are complaining about today's amendments are the self-same people who put down hundreds of amendments to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is a fact is that we are now going to get on with the debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is difficult for me to respond to a point of order with a point of order, but, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), suffice it to say, yes, it is perfectly correct that hon. Members may ask outside draftsmen to draft amendments; but the question is who pays the bill. According to a Speaker-approved list of charges, which was published for 1993, the standing charge, rate per hour, for parliamentary agents or solicitors' partners is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that he must now speak to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will discuss those amendments, but let me say that that bill was paid by a member of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association—at a rate of £146 an hour. The amendments that Tory Members have tabled—

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is casting aspersions on those people who wish to improve the Bill. [Interruption.] Would he care to tell the House who paid for the Bill to be drafted in its first dreadful Stalinist form?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will now settle down. This is the last time that I will tell the hon. Member for Workington that he must now refer his remarks to the amendments before us.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Amendments Nos. 39, 78, 79, 80, 95, 2, 17, 28, 23, 22, 98, 99, 107, 30, 29, 42 and 57 have all been paid for by the tobacco industry. Tory Members are being used to destroy a Bill that everyone wants because we all know that smoking damages people's health. The behaviour of the Conservative Party today is a disgrace.

Mr. John Carlisle: You would not expect me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow that appalling speech from the

hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who cast aspersions on me, my hon. Friends and the industry.
I will confine my remarks to the amendments and give notice that I wish to move the following amendments: Nos. 78, 79, 18, 95, 2, 17, 28, 23—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Member that he cannot move those amendments formally at this stage. They may just be discussed.

Mr. Carlisle: The amendments will obviously be debated, but since all the amendments are different, I will ask the House to divide on each one.

Mr. Harry Greenway: When my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member refers to the "industry", I should like to point out that they are talking about 500 of my constituents who work most honourably for Gallaher in Northolt. They are fine people and as honourable as anyone in the House or outside it. They cannot be condemned wholesale, as they have been by certain hon. Members. I will not have it.

Mr. Carlisle: The Bill will affect the employment of several thousand of our citizens, many of whom are honourable citizens employed by tobacco companies. One would have thought that Opposition Members would be somewhat more sympathetic not only to those employed in the manufacture of tobacco, but to those in the retailing of it whose livelihood is threatened by the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) dealt ably and comprehensively with amendment No. 39 and I should like to discuss amendment No. 38.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My hon. Friend has referred to the Bill's inherent dangers to employment. Does he have in mind the dangers to employment in the advertising industry or in the tobacco industry? If he is arguing that the Bill would endanger employment in the tobacco industry, he is accepting the thesis that if tobacco advertising is banned, the consumption of tobacco will fall and, therefore, the turnover of, and employment in, the tobacco industry will fall. That is a central argument in this debate and it is interesting that my hon. Friend, given his views on the Bill, accepts that thesis.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That very long intervention has little to do with what we are debating.

Mr. Carlisle: I hear the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), for whom I have the utmost affection and respect, but part of the crux of the Bill is whether the House should seek to ban the advertising of what is, like it or not, a legitimate product. The basis of the argument is whether we, for the first time in our history, should consider banning a product that is legitimately used by some 16 million people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendments. I should be grateful if he would get back to them.

Mr. Carlisle: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was taken down a road that I did not intend to go down. I felt duty-bound to satisfy my hon. Friend—obviously to your anger, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman, almost certainly inadvertently, said that the Bill sought to ban the sale of a product, but it does not. That is the second time that that has been said. It seeks to ban the advertising of a product, which is different. Will he correct what he said?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is sitting a long way from me; perhaps he did not hear exactly what I said. He should check Hansard. The Bill will ban the advertising of a legitimate product. I agree that some Opposition Members would like to ban the use of that product, but we are not debating that.

Mr. Leigh: Is not the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) that it is a proven fact that, each year, about 7 per cent. of smokers change their brands? If one were to ban advertising, therefore, there would be much less brand switching, which would affect employment in tobacco companies and the ability of foreign tobacco companies to export to this country.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. He is perhaps being modest in his assumption, because I understood that 26 per cent. of smokers change brand each year. That is what the advertisers are after. As my hon. Friends will know, to many of us non-smokers, cigarette advertisements are virtually gobbledegook—we do not understand them. I do not see, therefore, how they can attract people into smoking.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a number of non-smokers are children and that they do not find advertisements gobbledegook? Those advertisements have a substantial impact on young people and their take-up of smoking.

Mr. Carlisle: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has not seen the evidence and the proof. We all deplore children smoking, including the tobacco industry. Children begin to smoke because of the influence of parents, brothers and sisters and because it is fashionable. According to the latest report from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, advertising was not even in the first 10 reasons given by children as to why they take up smoking.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should do all we can to discourage smoking among children. To a certain extent, that is what the voluntary agreement is all about. If he wishes me to, I shall read the relevant passages of the agreement.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman made great play of the aspersions that he said were cast against him at the beginning of the debate. Will he clarify whether he drafted the amendments or whether they were paid for by the tobacco industry? Were Ian Greer Associates involved with their drafting?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not know whether you would find it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went down that line, but I am happy—you seem to be shaking your head, so I shall apologise to the hon. Lady because, although I should have liked to give her a full and honest answer to her question, I cannot do so.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: My hon. Friend said that young people probably take up smoking for a variety of reasons other than advertising. I accept that peer group pressure must be a far greater cause. Does he

accept, however, that cigarette advertising is bound to have some influence on young people and that that is justification for the Bill?

Mr. Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I raised earlier, but which has not been respected. I suggested that it would help the reputation of the House if hon. Members made it clear, to absolve us from any suggestion of partial influence, whether they or their party have had any financial inducements or favours from the tobacco industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members know the procedure for declaring interests. All hon. Members are responsible for their speeches.

Mr. Carlisle: I am anxious to help the House and keep to subject of the Bill, but I should like, if I may, to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) on the issue of children smoking. Any form of advertising is bound to wash off on children to a certain extent. The available evidence, which has been produced by non-biased lobby groups, shows that advertising is not —let me be kind to my hon. Friend—a prime reason why children take up smoking. They take it up because of the other reasons that he mentioned.
In many cases, advertising is bound to have some influence on children, whatever the product. The voluntary agreement specifically states that there shall not be any advertising directed at young people. That is in the agreement, and who knows what the new agreement will say if my hon. Friend has a chance to speak, which he may not have if Opposition Members keep interrupting me?

Mr. Derek Enright: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: After the hon. Gentleman has intervened, we will return to the amendments.

Mr. Enright: To get rid of all these aspersions, will the hon. Gentleman affirm that Barry Simmons PR Ltd. has nothing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to query your ruling, but there is a precedent, approved by Madam Speaker, for hon. Members asking other hon. Members whether they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in an issue. Will you consider your ruling that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) must keep specifically to the amendment? As I understand it, he can keep to it yet still ask whether the hon. Gentleman's company has a relationship or is expecting to have a relationship with any company or firm involved in the tobacco industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat the advice that I have already given: all right hon. and hon. Members know the procedures and are aware of the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is responsible for his speech, to whom he gives way and the answers that he gives.

Mr. Carlisle: It may be of help to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House if I say that the Register of Members' Interests is accurate on my interests: there is no mention of tobacco companies.
I would plead guilty to attending various sporting functions at the invitation of tobacco companies, but some Opposition Members have enjoyed the hospitality of tobacco companies, such as the Benson and Hedges final, some years ago. Those hon. Members are not here, so it would not be fair to name them or say whether they were an Opposition spokesman on sport—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be fair to the House and the Chair if we got back to the amendments.

Mr. Carlisle: You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you accept that there is a distinction between an hon. Member receiving a ticket for a visit to a sporting function, which I have never done and would never do, and his or her moving an amendment that relates to an industry from which he or she has received such benefits? That distinction is the reason why the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) cannot relate his position to that of my hon. Friends or any other hon. Member.

Mr. Carlisle: Enormous aspersions are being cast on my integrity in relation to the Register of Members' Interests. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have registered my interests, as I want to do, and there is no indication that they involve a tobacco company. I repeat, I have received their hospitality, as have Opposition Members, several times. I have attended functions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suppose that all those involved have enjoyed such hospitality, too. Let us get back to the amendments.

Mr. Carlisle: We have all enjoyed the hospitality and the games. I know that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) enjoys games sponsored by tobacco companies and I do not criticise him for that. He especially enjoys rugby league and has attended several games sponsored by tobacco companies. May I return—

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter for the sake of a filibuster, but I place it on record that I attend sporting matches at the behest of no one, especially not at that of the tobacco industry which I abhor because of its attempts to sponsor sports, including my own, and to use that sponsorship as a way of disguising its disgusting products. The hon. Gentleman has been informed on numerous occasions by the Rugby Football League that his accusations are completely false and erroneous.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I shall not tolerate any further straying from the amendments. If any hon. Member does stray, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Alan Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For reasons that we all accept, there was no opportunity yesterday to question the Leader of the House on the business statement in the usual way. It is a convention of the House that, if the Government are to make a statement on a Friday, they do so at 11 am. We are

now approaching that time. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received notification from the Leader of the House that he intends to make an announcement about the Government's plans to make further time available for consideration of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill?
This is an urgent and important matter. It is a week since the fiasco of the Bill's Report stage and a fortnight since the House passed a resolution requiring the Government to provide time to enable us to complete consideration of the Bill. Will you convey to the Lord President on our behalf the fact that it would be wholly unacceptable for the Government to ignore the will of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker has already dealt with that matter and, as far as I know, there has been no notification from the Government.

Mr. Carlisle: I am disappointed that it has taken us so long to get this far.
Amendment No. 78 would delete the words "specific tobacco product". We must ask what exactly is a "specific tobacco product"? The term is extremely ambiguous. A cigarette is clearly a tobacco product, as is a cigar, but I fear that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has in mind a specific type of tobacco product.
Most of the amendments that I have tabled are modest, but they are important in their own way. Amendment No. 78 is such an amendment and seeks to provide a better definition of what the hon. Gentleman means by the word "specific". I believe that that is helpful, although some of my colleagues may not think so and may vote against the amendment if given the opportunity to do so. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to explain the word "specific", I shall be happy to give way to him; but he clearly does not wish to do so.
Amendment No. 79 also goes to the heart of the Bill. It is a probing amendment and deals with the word "communication" which appears frequently in the Bill. We have every right to ask what exactly the sponsor means by the word "communication". Does it mean communication by word of mouth or by mail shots, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North? Does it mean advertisements? When is something an advertisement and when is it not an advertisement?

Mr. Cash: On my hon. Friend's earlier point about what is or is not a tobacco product, is he aware that ubiquinone, otherwise known as vitamin Q, is found naturally in our bodies, but can be synthesised from tobacco leaves? It boosts the immune system, helps combat high blood pressure, aids the regeneration of cells and acts as an anti-oxidant. Therefore, the prevention of certain advertisements could be deleterious to health.

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we need a clearer definition. He is probably aware that tobacco can be used medically to calm people down and should perhaps be distributed a little more frequently to the hon. Member for Workington. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, without a proper definition as sought by amendment No. 78, we could be banning the advertising of substances that are beneficial to the health of the nation.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to mail shots. Would the Bill, if amended as he wishes, be able to


ban mail shots from the continent in view of the fact continental manufacturers have increased their stake in the United Kingdom market?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right to raise an important point which is dealt with in a later part of the Bill. I am sure that we shall reach the relevant amendments.

Mrs. Peacock: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the possible effects on health and how good tobacco could be in that respect. Will he explain why tobacco-related diseases in my constituency cost the health service £600,000 last year?

Mr. Carlisle: I am no great expert on medical matters, as one can see from the shape of me. Having said that, however, it is a fact that in some cases the modified use of nicotine can be of enormous help, especially to those with nervous diseases, which some Opposition Members clearly have. My hon. Friend cannot, with hand on heart, say that there is not one person who would not possibly benefit from the odd cigarette from time to time.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I note with some interest and surprise that my hon. Friend is basing his argument in favour of tobacco advertising on health grounds. Will he comment on the fact that 62 per cent. of doctors believe that all forms of tobacco advertising should be banned?

Mr. Carlisle: Personally, I would ban 62 per cent. of doctors. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise from the Conservative Benches. I am trying to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but many of his colleagues are intent on ensuring that I cannot.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) makes an important point. Of course we are not saying that in general the use of tobacco products is beneficial to the nation's health, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) pointed out, certain substances related to tobacco can be helpful, which is the reasoning behind amendment No. 78. Some people might even contact my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon after the debate to tell him that they have almost been prescribed a form of tobacco. If the Bill were passed without amendment No. 78, those people would be denied the advertising and possibly even the knowledge of such products.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has touched on a very important point. There is a balance to be struck. Is he aware that Dutch researchers have found that nicotine can protect against Alzheimer's disease and that, furthermore, it can cut the risk by up to 50 per cent? Some Alzheimer patients are currently wearing the nicotine patches usually used by smokers who are trying to kick the habit in order to test the theory. That is an important step forward. The blanket approach of trying to stop everyone knowing anything about tobacco could be detrimental to the health of the nation.

Mr. Carlisle: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford makes an extremely helpful point. He has given a medical fact and I am grateful to him. Similarly, a couple of glasses of wine are now reckoned to help in preventing heart disease. I fear that some Opposition Members wish to

ban the advertising of alcohol; some of them have already hinted that. On that basis, amendment No. 78 should be approved by the House.

11 am

Mr. Barron: I am, once again, intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's claim that smoking cigarettes is in the interests of public health. He also said that in Committee. More important, if he truly believes what he is saying about the amendments he has tabled, why did he not table amendments in Committee? We could have sat not only for hours, but for days or weeks to consider the detail of the Bill. Why did he not do that? At the first sitting, I invited him and his hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who has also tabled amendments, to table amendments in Committee. Everyone knows the answer to that question. The hon. Gentleman should tell the House why he has some of his hon. Friends here to discuss issues that we could have discussed in detail in Committee.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall answer a question with a question. Why did the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) table several amendments in Committee? Except for once or twice when he had the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) and myself, he was the only person voting for them. This is part of parliamentary procedure. Since the Bill came to our attention, was debated on Second Reading and then went into Committee, several other matters, as is right, have come up and should be discussed fully. The hon. Member for Rother Valley is saying that we should not discuss his Bill because he believes that it is in perfect form. Conservative and Opposition Members have an absolute right to question the Bill and to table amendments as they see fit.

Mr. Barron: I gave the hon. Gentleman the right to table amendments by putting him on the Committee, as I had the right to do as promoter of the Bill, although I knew that he and his hon. Friend the Member for High Peak opposed the Bill—[Interruption.] That is the procedure of this House. If hon. Members do not know the rules, they should check them. I put the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on the Committee on the basis that he opposed the Bill. The honourable thing to do would have been for him to table the amendments in Committee, when we could have discussed them, instead of taking part in this procedural mugging.
In the first sitting on 23 February, the hon. Member for Luton, North said:
We were tempted to table numerous amendments—we thought of as many as 200".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 23 February 1994; c. 5.]
Instead, the hon. Gentleman has waited to table amendments until today when, as he knows, time is limited and the Bill will be procedurally mugged. All his hon. Friends who accept that one can do this to a Bill that is a major issue of public health should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Carlisle: Oh dear, we have ruffled the hon. Gentleman's feathers. As I gave him notice in Committee that several amendments might be tabled, I am surprised that he did not make his point in Committee rather than allowing his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy to table some stupid and spurious amendments. We know that they


were designed specifically to try to prevent discussion on the Floor of the House, when the whole House could take part, because they would be voted on only in Committee.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has just stated that he placed hon. Members on the Committee. I am sure that the Committee of Selection observed the normal courtesy of seeking advice from the hon. Gentleman. He has said, not only on the Floor of the House, but outside the House, that he placed hon. Members on the Committee. It would be a great mistake if such a perversion of the reality was allowed to become current belief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the Committee of Selection. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order. The House must settle down.

Mr. Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came third in the ballot and decided to promote this Bill. When I left the Chamber after the Bill's unopposed Second Reading, the Clerk to the Public Bill Office gave me a letter that said that I could nominate hon. Members to the Committee, with the exception of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is quite simple. As the House knows, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will have had some input in terms of suggesting names. It is then a matter for the Committee of Selection. Full stop.

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A disgraceful slur has been made against the hon. Member for Rother Valley. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask him to explain himself so that his good character can be vindicated? Namely that he—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are responsible for their own speeches. That is it.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made a ruling.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the memory of the hon. Member for Rother Valley is rather selective? When we moved the first amendment in Committee, shortly after my hon. Friend had started to speak the hon. Member—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us talk about today's amendments and not about amendments moved in Committee.

Mr. Carlisle: I take it that we have talked enough about amendments Nos. 78 and 79, although other hon. Members may come back to them. I know turn to amendment No. 18, which is important and helpful to the Bill.

Mr. Sweeney: My hon. Friend seems to have been advancing the argument that a little bit of tobacco is good for people, just as the odd glass of wine is good for people. Is he not aware that the overwhelming medical evidence is that even a small number of cigarettes are harmful? If a

heavy smoker cuts down his smoking, he improves his chances of a long life. The more he cuts down, the more he improves those chances. The best thing for a heavy smoker to do is to give up smoking entirely. The best thing for a non-smoker to do is never to take it up.

Mr. Carlisle: I thought that we had dispatched amendment No. 78, but I shall go back to it as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan seems to want me to do so. If my hon. Friend looks carefully at the Bill, he will see that without the excellent and helpful amendment No. 78, tabled by me and by my hon. Friends, he will be denying access to advertisements and information to those who find that the odd intake of nicotine through tobacco products or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said, through patches on part of the human tissue—which may count as a tobacco product —is helpful. We need the amendment to assist those people. My hon. Friends may disagree with that and may vote against the amendment.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill goes through as drafted, the opportunity for health warnings through advertising on notice boards will go? We shall lose a great opportunity for advising people about the health hazards of smoking.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that since the health warning appeared on poster sites and on cigarette packets, there has been a continuing drop in the number of people who smoke. The background to our debate should be along those lines. As a result of the Government's policy, the voluntary agreement and the decisions made by many individuals, who have not been nannied by hon. Members, the consumption of tobacco has been reduced. That is why amendment No. 78 should find favour with the House.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a letter I received from the East Anglian health authority, which is situated in my constituency. The letter says that overall, people in East Anglia are healthier than people in the rest of England, but that they do particularly badly in terms of smoking-related diseases. The letter writer quotes the number of deaths of people from coronary heart disease and the incidence of lung cancer among women, which is increasing in the region. She says:
all groups of health professionals are convinced that our local efforts would be much more effective if they were supported by a ban on the advertising and promotion of tobacco.
That negates what the hon. Member is saying about the possible beneficial effects of tobacco.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is making the bland assertion that because the incidence of smoking in her region, which I know well, is higher than that in other regions, it means a higher rate of heart disease and stress. I suggest to the hon. Lady that if I lived in Cambridge, with a Labour Member of Parliament and a Labour council, I would feel extremely stressed. I am not surprised by the figures that she quotes.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend referred earlier to the influence of advertisements on children and smoking. Does he not agree that it is extraordinary that the brand of cigarettes which is most widely sold in this country—Silk Cut—has nothing in its advertisements at all which relates to smoking other than


the warning? Is it not the warning that is important? Without those advertisements, we would not have the warning.

Mr. Carlisle: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alan Howarth: rose

Mr. Carlisle: May I answer the point and then come back to my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak and for Stratford-on-Avon? I am anxious to get on, but my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has raised an important point.
Obviously, to many of us, such advertisements are totally ambiguous. We do not understand what they are and they are specifically aimed by the industry at those 26 per cent.—my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said 7 per cent.—who change brands year in year out. However, they are changing brands on a falling market. Those advertisements are purely for existing smokers. I do not believe that some of the advertisements encourage non-smokers.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. In response to comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North seems to be going so far as to suggest that it was the very existence and continuation of advertising, carrying health warnings, that had caused the diminution of tobacco consumption. Is that really what he is saying, because the debate is becoming quite surreal?

Mr. Carlisle: Many of the arguments that we heard in Committee from Opposition Members were surreal, but I hate to cast aspersions on my hon. Friends. One should consider the evidence that has been put forward by many bodies and organisations that are nothing to do with the tobacco industry, such as, for example, the social affairs unit, which does not exactly sound like a right-wing Conservative organisation, but is headed by Dr. Digby Anderson who had the privilege of going to school with me. What he says in his evidence and what others say demonstrates that tobacco advertising is a factor, but that it is a very minimal factor. The biggest effect of advertising is switching of brands.

Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the Government's objectives is to encourage people to switch to low-tar cigarettes and that the best way in which people can get information about the tar levels of a cigarette is through advertising messages? If we get rid of the advertising of tobacco, the competition will concentrate on price wars and we shall end up with people being encouraged to smoke more because cigarette prices will come down.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we have seen that happen in a price war over the importation of cigarettes through the ports because of duty-free goods. The consumption of one particular brand has risen quite dramatically because of its price. To the Government's credit, they have tried hard on the basis of "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, their whole thrust being to discourage smoking. That is reflected in the taxation policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor. There is no doubt that the higher the price goes, the more people tend to give

up smoking. However, it is not for the House to dictate to those 16 million adults who wish to smoke and to tell them that a legitimate product should not be advertised.

Mr. Quentin Davies: May I make a point in response to our hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who appeared to be arguing that one of the disadvantages to the nation's health of banning advertising would be that it would no longer be possible to tell people about the supposed medically and clinically beneficial effects of tobacco consumption in the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford Mr. Cash)?
Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North would agree that the voluntary agreement precludes the industry from using the medium of advertising to draw to the attention of the public any such beneficial effects of tobacco, if such effects exist. Therefore, any damage would be done not by the Bill being passed, but, in the light of the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, by the voluntary agreement, which would impede the communication of medically useful information. Is that really what really my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North is arguing? If so, he is arguing not against the Bill, but against the voluntary agreement.

Mr. Carlisle: Aside from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding, we do not know what the revised form of the voluntary agreement will be. The voluntary agreement has been extremely successful in reducing the consumption of tobacco products—far more successful than in those countries where there has been an absolute ban. That is the merit of the agreement, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding will certainly outline to the House if he has a chance later and catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir Peter Emery: I have not interrupted my hon. Friend before, but may I ask him to refer to the request from Professor Dame Margaret Turner-Warwick, as he is talking on the medical side? She is the first lady ever to have been a president of one of the royal societies of medicine. She was president of the Royal Society of Physicians and wrote:
The increase in lung cancer incidents is almost entirely due to cigarette smoking. Please help to reduce the unacceptable level of preventable deaths and disease caused by tobacco by supporting the private Member's Bill to ban tobacco advertising.
Does he dismiss that absolutely?

Mr. Carlisle: I believe that my right hon. Friend brought up a similar point on Second Reading, not Committee. Opinions vary on this very touchy subject. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would say that one opinion expressed by one person supported by others would necessarily be taken as gospel in the House. She is entitled to her opinion, as are other medical professors, who would take a contrary view, not only on that, but on passive smoking and other subjects.

Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend also be interested to know that the eminent Central Council of Physical Recreation has sent me a letter today, which says that it takes a long-term view and very much hopes that the Bill


will not go through? Those people are responsible for so much of the physical recreation and health of the nation. It knows perfectly well, as it says:
to single out one legal product as the object of special Government restriction within the market place is not only odd but does present a future threat to other products and services which may from time to time become unpopular or out of favour.
There is a real balance in the argument about the merits and demerits of the Bill, not only on medical grounds, but on physical recreation and health.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know, as chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench committee, that sporting matters are of direct interest to me. The CCPR has consistently said that banning tobacco advertising would be very detrimental to sport.

Several hon. Members: indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle: In particular, it says in the existing voluntary agreement—I see hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench shaking their heads and making gestures at me. It says in the voluntary agreement that sport should not be influenced by tobacco companies and, indeed, should not be promoted. That has been agreed, not only in the voluntary agreement, but in the separate code for sport. There is overwhelming evidence that just to ban the advertising of a legitimate product, which is all we are talking about here, would affect a lot of people in the sporting world and elsewhere. Many would be denied the sports they currently enjoy if it were not for the sponsorship of certain tobacco companies.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As my hon. Friend will know, I have a retail interest in selling tobacco products and also have experience of selling tobacco products to many customers in the Swansea area. I should be delighted if all my customers gave up smoking because I know of the damage that it does to their health. However, we have diversified over the years.
Is my hon. Friend aware that, when I first started selling tobacco products, the popular brands were Woodbine, Capstan Full Strength and Senior Service—high in nicotine and tar yield? Now, our highest selling brand is Silk Cut, which is a low-tar cigarette. If one talks about safer cigarettes, there is one. It is the advertising of the benefits of switching from high-tar to low-tar cigarettes which the Bill would ban.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is an expert in his field and has practical knowledge—

Mr. McCartney: He is an expert in selling cigarettes.

Mr. Carlisle: If I may say to the hon. Member, I am not sure whether it is for Makerfield or Mafeking, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is legitimately selling a product, which is lawful, to those who are legitimately allowed to buy it. Thank heavens, assuming that the Bill does not find favour with the House, he will still be able to advertise that product.
My hon. Friend is entirely right that, in terms of the tar content, the advertising of cigarettes has improved with the health warning and with the ability of tobacco companies to say to their customers that they have a lower-tar cigarette

and, therefore, encourage them to switch to that brand rather than to others. That must be beneficial to the running of the industry and the way in which things are going.

Mr. Leigh: I take up the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Since 1986, the number of people smoking middle-tar cigarettes has fallen from 40 per cent. to 4 per cent. The central feature of the arguments that are being advanced by some of my hon. Friends is that if we ban advertising there will be no inducement to switch to low-tar cigarettes.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. The evidence is irrefutable.
There are many amendments before us and I know that the House is anxious to make progress. Having discussed amendments Nos. 78 and 79 reasonably comprehensively —I accept that there may be some divisions, as it were, between my hon. Friends, some of whom may not like the amendments—I shall move on to amendment No. 18. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley has studied it, I think that he will agree that it would be an extremely helpful amendment to his Bill.
The amendment turns on communications with those in the industry and with those working for the industry. When the hon. Gentleman tabled his Bill, I do not think that he intended it to introduce such swingeing restrictions. For example, if his Bill were enacted as it stands, it could prevent tobacco companies from engaging in communications, if I may use the term, with their employees, with their trade unions or with their works councils. I do not think that that was the hon. Gentleman's intention. I see that he is nodding.
It is not for me to comment on whether the hon. Gentleman took advice on the drafting of the Bill. Equally, it would not be for me to comment on where his advice, if he received any, came from. Obviously it did not come from the trade unions. I am sure that they would have been rather upset by such a swingeing restriction being imposed on them. If the hon. Gentleman has received trade union advice, perhaps he will tell us—obviously he did not; otherwise, he would have told us.
As I have said, amendment No. 18 would be extremely helpful. Of course, it may not appeal to every hon. Member. The House may wish to say, if there is a Division, that it does not like it. I believe, however, that it is very helpful. Under the Bill as it stands, a communication from a tobacco company to its employees informing them, perhaps, of a meeting—there might have to be a meeting to discuss the possibility of a pay rise or it may be necessary to discuss the future of the company, including the introduction of improved social benefits—could be prevented from taking place.

Mr. Robert Banks: What would be the position of shareholders and annual reports, for example, in terms of the tobacco companies informing their shareholders of what they are doing and the results that have been achieved? Surely they should be able to communicate that information to their shareholders and, for that matter, to the public at large, who need to be in possession of such information. I have in mind people in the City—bankers and the rest.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Shareholders will need to receive annual reports.
They will need to be notified of dividends, for example, and it will be necessary for them to receive notices of meetings.
As I have said, amendment No.18 reflects a wish to be helpful. We are saying, in effect, that the Bill should be more specific. Tobacco companies should be able to have communications with who they wish. It may be—God forbid—that the Opposition will form a Government. They may wish to relate to the public the ills or possibly even the merits of the social chapter. If it comes before the House or it is introduced into our legislation, a tobacco company, if the Bill is not amended, would not be able to tell its employees of the merits or otherwise, or the conditions imposed, by the social chapter. I ask the House to examine the amendment carefully. It is designed to be helpful and it is unique.
I move on to amendment No. 95, which relates to advertisements on the side of vehicles. In this instance, the hon. Member for Rother Valley has tried to be helpful for he has said that advertisements on the side of moving vehicles might be prohibited. He was not, however, specific. There is a feeling among some of my hon. Friends that the hon. Gentleman should go to his advisers, paid or otherwise—it would not be proper for me to resurrect that argument, but the drafting should have been done rather more carefully—for further advice.
As things stand, the intention behind the Bill is very much to focus on the name of a company and not necessarily the brand name. In some instances, companies are known not by their name but by their product. For example, there is the Hoover vacuum cleaner. To many people, a vacuum cleaner is a Hoover. They do not use the name of the maker or manufacturer of the instrument. They refer, as it were, to the machinery. Equally, many people talk about Rothmans, John Player or whatever. They do not necessarily refer to the tobacco company itself.
The purpose of amendment No. 95—it is intended, as I have said, to be helpful—is to ensure that advertisements that use a name that is rather different from the name of the product should be allowed on the side of vehicles and on mobile poster sites.
It is an old trick in the motor industry to park vehicles bearing advertisements in places chosen by the company. My own company, the Bletchley Motor Group—I hesitated before mentioning it, excellent company though it is—has painted BMG on the side of a lorry and parked it by the side of a road or in a hotel car park, for example. It is a legitimate method of advertising. As the Bill stands, it would be extremely difficult for my company or a tobacco company to use it.

Mr. Cash: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bill as it stands would be anti-competitive? Wearing my legal hat, I have from time to time been called upon to give advice on matters of this sort. Will my hon. Friend accept that the Bill could infringe European requirements, laws and regulations? As a result, if the Bill were enacted it could be overridden by the European Court of Justice. That would render the Bill useless and obsolete.

Mr. Carlisle: Many of us regard it as useless. I hope that it will be obsolete after today. However, my hon. Friend is right. With his deep and detailed knowledge of European matters, I think that the House will accept that he

has raised an important matter. It is the anti-competitive section of the Bill that we are trying to amend. It is so important to allow proper competition.

Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the amendment were not carried, the Bill, when enacted, would favour a company whose name was the same as its product? By favouring that company, it would discriminate against companies lawfully manufacturing a product but not being able to advertise in the same way.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is always sharp in his intellect and understanding in these matters. If I may say so, I could not have put it better myself.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me again. Before he leaves the amendment, will he reflect on the fact that it draws attention to how draconian and ridiculous the Bill is? For instance, some tobacco companies may acquire vintage vehicles or replicas of such vehicles, and merely paint the name of the company on the side. Surely that is allowable. Surely that should be permissible in the brand wars that will take place.

Mr. Barron: It is.

Mr. Banks: Are we to expect bevies of inspectors visiting vintage car rallies to ensure that the names of tobacco companies that are painted on the side of vintage vehicles are removed?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right in his worries. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley has said, however—I pay credit to him because he is an honourable man who has done a minimal amount of research into the Bill—he has tried in this instance to ensure that the Bill is not as draconian as it might be. There is, however, still a worry. There is a later amendment—we are galloping through the amendment paper so I am sure that we shall reach it—that would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman on this important point.
I move on to amendment No.2, which deals with stationery. It is extremely important. The Bill, as drafted, will ban stationery and other identifying items that could be deemed to be communications constituting or containing an advertisement. That is extraordinary—it means that, if a tobacco company has a logo and wishes to communicate with anyone—possibly hon. Members—it will have to be careful that it does not fall foul of the legislation and be deemed to be advertising its product.
11.30 am
It will be extraordinary if a company cannot even write to its customers in the fear that it may be advertising its wares. It could not write to the Department of Health to say that the next cigarette that it was to manufacture was lower in tar. It could only do so on blank paper that gave no sign of the sender of the letter. That begs the question as to what is a letter and what an advertisement. The House must consider that issue, which is why the amendment is helpful. Some hon. Members may not think so, but those of us who have put our names to it believe so.
Are we to legislate so that a tobacco company cannot put its name at the top of the letterhead for fear that it will contradict the law by advertising its wares and itself?

Mr. Nigel Evans: The greatest number of communications that—[HON. MEMBERS: "You should declare your


interest."] I have already declared my retail interest; the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) was not listening.
The greatest number of communications that we in the retail trade receive from the tobacco industry normally arrive after a Budget when the price of tobacco products has increased. Such price increases have contributed more than anything else to the decrease in tobacco consumption in this country.

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The legislation would have an extraordinary effect on a company's communications by letter. Tobacco companies may wish to ask, as they have in the past, Opposition Members to attend sporting functions that they have sponsored. They would receive short shrift from some of those on the Opposition Front Bench—not all of them. The Bill would make it impossible for Opposition Members to say no in response to those letters, as they would not have received the invitations in the first place.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is focusing with great accuracy on the defects of the Bill's drafting, including the matter of what is or is not an advertisement for a tobacco product, which hinges on the form of communication. Let us take the point beyond the issue of stationery that my hon. Friend mentioned. Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that communication would include all the material contained in every computer in every company throughout the country—personal and otherwise—and that those forms of communication would also have to be extracted? Has the Bill's promoter given any consideration to the manner in which that would be achieved?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. There is another amendment—we shall discuss it later should you consider it worthy of debate, Madam Speaker—that deals with communications that take place before the Bill, if enacted, comes into force. A situation could arise similar to that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate when he referred to the vintage cars. The sending of a letter that did not originally constitute an offence could become an offence were that letter resurrected and later, after the enactment of the Bill, sent to an intended customer or client. I commend my extremely helpful amendment to my hon. Friends—although some of them may think that it should be voted down.
Amendment No. 17 deals, in a similar way, with a different and important matter—entries in business directories. It deals with the problems that might arise with, for example—I hesitate to name a commercial company —Yellow Pages, a business directory familiar to all hon. Members. The amendment will allow tobacco companies to advertise their tobacco products or put their names in a directory without fear of prosecution.
We could face an extraordinary situation were the Bill passed as drafted, as tobacco companies would not be able to put their names in a business directory to invite customers or opponents to contact them. They would be unable to do so as, according to the Bill, they could be liable to prosecution for doing so. Legitimate sellers of a legitimate product would be unable to put their names in a business directory, not necessarily to advertise but to make people aware of their presence. That would be true were the Bill not amended by the modest amendment No. 17.
Hon. Members will know that on many occasions companies ring up stating that they want to insert advertisements in business directories, when they do not. The Bill would prevent even the names of those companies appearing in the directories, which would, according to the Bill as drafted, be deemed to be advertising material. I am glad to see some of my hon. Friends shaking their heads in utter disbelief at that.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have to be concerned—as would any hon. Member who wants to do his or her job —for my 400 or 500 constituents who work for Gallaher. Is my hon. Friend saying that, without the amendment, the Bill would mean that any advertisement for jobs or relating to the company would be banned? That would mean that in an area where there is already serious unemployment, it would be even more difficult for people to obtain jobs. Is that not a serious matter for the House, and for me, as the Member representing those honourable people?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. That will be the fear if the Bill is implemented as drafted. The hon. Member for Rother Valley complains about our amendments, but he should have thought about the Bill properly before he brought it before the House.
The Bill contains reams of words that would be detrimental to the interests of the British people and employees in the industry or the retail sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said. The House will now have some idea of the draconian measures promoted by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. That is why we are anxious to try to amend it to make it better if possible.

Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) described the legislation as draconian. He will be aware—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have a point of order.

Mr. Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Peter Griffiths: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you consult your Clerk about the assurance given one hour ago by your Deputy that those hon. Members who did not make repeated or lengthy interventions would be looked upon kindly by him when the time came for them to speak? I have sat and followed his directions exactly, only to find myself unable to speak on the amendment in my name.

Madam Speaker: I hope that all hon. Members who have the Floor will take into consideration the fact that there are many hon. Members with differing and with similar views whose voices must be heard. I hope that hon. Members will show discipline during the debate so that hon. Members—such as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths)—who have tabled amendments, are allowed to speak to them. That is what I wish to see—unfortunately, some hon. Members who take the Floor tend to become a little tedious and repetitious. We have to make a little progress at some time.

Mr. Couchman: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is an amendment within this


group—amendment No. 43—in my name which I have not had an opportunity to debate. I hoped that I would be able to do so. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has a great many amendments standing in his name and that he has felt it necessary to expand at some length on them, but I am disappointed that you have not found it possible to allow me to speak to the amendment in my name. It is a very important amendment and it should be debated.

Madam Speaker: All amendments are important to me. I find it somewhat disappointing that the hon. Member for Luton, North has not allowed the hon. Gentleman to speak to his amendment.

Mr. John Carlisle: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you advise me as to whether being tedious is being out of order, as both you and Mr. Deputy Speaker did not pull me up too many times—in fact, almost not at all—as I tried to keep to the subject?
Perhaps I should apologise to you, and possibly to the House, if you found it tedious, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether that word could be struck from the record, as it casts an aspersion on my ability to engage the House in conversation.

Madam Speaker: Being tedious is not being out of order; it is a matter of opinion. The hon. Gentleman will respect all our individual opinions on matters.

The House having divided: Ayes 117, Noes 9.

Division No.238]
[11.37 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Alton, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Gapes, Mike


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gerrard, Neil


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Austin-Walker, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gunnell, John


Barnes, Harry
Hain, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Harman, Ms Harriet


Battle, John
Hinchliffe, David


Bayley, Hugh
Hoey, Kate


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Berry, Roger
Hutton, John


Blunkett, David
Jessel, Toby


Boateng, Paul
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Byers, Stephen
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Canavan, Dennis
Livingstone, Ken


Clapham, Michael
Lynne, Ms Liz


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Maclennan, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
McWilliam, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Mahon, Alice


Cousins, Jim
Michael, Alun


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Miller, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Dover, Den
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mudie, George


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mullin, Chris


Enright, Derek
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Etherington, Bill
O'Hara, Edward


Fatchett, Derek
Olner, William


Fisher, Mark
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth





Pike, Peter L.
Soley, Clive


Pope, Greg
Spearing, Nigel


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Quin, Ms Joyce
Sweeney, Walter


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Ruddock, Joan
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Waller, Gary


Sheerman, Barry
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wicks, Malcolm


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Andrew Bennett and


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



NOES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Gardiner, Sir George



Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mr. Richard Alexander and


Hendry, Charles
Mr. Jerry Wiggin.


Skeet, Sir Trevor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 108.

Division No.239]
[11.50 am


AYES


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Moss, Malcolm


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Cash, William
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Couchman, James
Waller, Gary


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Watts, John


Gardiner, Sir George
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)



Hendry, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jenkin, Bernard
Sir Jerry Wiggin and


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Richard Alexander.


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dover, Den


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Ms Angela


Alton, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Enright, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Austin-Walker, John
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Forman, Nigel


Battle, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Fraser, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hutton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jessel, Toby


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert






Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Joan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McKelvey, William
Simpson, Alan


Maclennan, Robert
Sims, Roger


Mahon, Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Miller, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mullin, Chris
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Olner, William
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Ward, John


Pope, Greg
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Prescott, John
Wolfson, Mark


Primarolo, Dawn



Raynsford, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Alan Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You told me privately a few moments ago, but I am sure that you will not mind if I reveal our conversation to the House, that you would not accept any Divisions on the remaining amendments to the clause. With the greatest respect, may I ask for your reasons, because the amendments were deliberately tabled on different subjects, as I tried to explain, however tediously, in a brief intervention. Apart from two possible exceptions, the amendments are quite different from each other. They are important and I am utterly disappointed that, unless you are persuaded otherwise, you will not allow Divisions on them.

Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that there is precedent for not choosing subsequent amendments, but I understand that if the amendments are substantially different and have not been covered in the debate—and I understand that up to 17 have not—there is equal precedent for allowing further Divisions.

Madam Speaker: There are no precedents for allowing Divisions on any of these amendments. I did not expect the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) to reveal the contents of a private conversation, but, as he has done so, I shall reveal to the House that I told him that I would not allow Divisions on these amendments.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is on a separate matter. It has become obvious from discussions behind the Chair that the Under-Secretary of State will seek to make a statement on the Department of Health's policy on the agreement between the tobacco industry and the Department. That is an unusual way to proceed, because he has not sought to indicate through the business of the House that a departmental statement is to be made. Because of that, the official Opposition have not been given a copy of the statement. That means that the Minister will try to make a Government statement on the back of inappropriate amendments, thus not allowing a proper questioning of him about Government policy on this matter.
On Second Reading, the Minister for Health made it plain that negotiations were taking place and that at the end of them the Government would provide an opportunity for the Department to set out the Government's clear policy lines on this matter. It is totally inappropriate and a misuse of the House by the Minister to attempt to get a Government policy statement in this way, thus using the House's time to talk out the Bill. I should like some clarification about how the Minister intends to proceed in this matter.

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it relate to this matter?

Mr. Couchman: Yes. At the beginning of the debate, I asked why you had decided not to call new clause 3. You suggested that it was because it was not in sympathy with the Bill. I did not question you because I respect your right to choose amendments, but had you selected new clause 3 for debate it would have been an admirable vehicle for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make an up-to-date position statement on the voluntary agreement.

Madam Speaker: I respect the hon. Gentleman's comments, but he appears to be challenging my decisions and, of course, the Speaker does not give reasons for the non-selection of new clauses or amendments.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am on my feet and about to speak.
I understand that the Minister wants to comment on the amendments. Alas, he has not been able to do so. Perhaps if we made some progress he would have an opportunity to speak and I am sure that we would all be interested in what he has to say.

Mr. Barron: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: There cannot be any further points of order. I have responded as best I can and we are waiting to hear what the Minister has to say—if he gets an opportunity to speak. I should have thought that the House wanted to make some progress on the matter.

Mr. Barron: rose—

Madam Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barron: I want to clarify the situation. The Bill stands alone and has nothing to do with the voluntary agreement, irrespective of whether that has been renegotiated. The Bill will replace it and nowhere does the Bill mention the voluntary agreement. As hon. Members have been saying for many months, the Bill stands alone.

Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, I have heard enough points of order and they are now becoming repetitious. We must now make some progress.

Mr. Hendry: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'wholly or mainly'.

Madam Speaker: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 37, in page 1, line 10, after 'purpose', insert


'to an extent (in comparison with the whole area of the premises used for selling purposes) prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State'.
No. 36, in page 1, line 11, after '(b)', insert
'as respects premises to which paragraph (a) above does not apply'.
No. 108, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'contains' to 'a' in line 13.
No. 10, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'only'.
No. 35, in page 1, leave out lines 18 and 19.
No. 9, in page 1, line 18, after 'advertisement', leave out to the end of line 19 and insert
'is not within one metre of any external door, window or other opening, through which it is visible from outside the building'.
No. 34, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1) a booth, kiosk or area within retail premises divided or partitioned from the remainder of the premises shall itself be treated as being premises.'.

Mr. Hendry: The amendment—[Interruption.] I declare no interest because I have none to declare. The only interest that I feel I should declare is that some of my constituents work for a tobacco company in Hyde and I therefore represent their interests in this matter.
One of the reasons why we found it necessary to table some of the amendments is because of the very shabby treatment that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and I received in Committee. I say that because, no sooner had my hon. Friend started to move the first amendment, than the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), the promoter of the Bill, pushed for a closure and made it clear that he did not wish us to play a constructive part in the consideration of the Bill.
He also made it clear that he wished to conclude the Committee's consideration of the Bill in three mornings. It was made very evident to us that he was not interested in detailed discussion of matters such as the voluntary agreement, which, whatever he says, is fundamental to the Bill. We found it necessary therefore to declare in Committee that we would table amendments on Report because we did not feel that we had been given the opportunity to make those points properly.
The hon. Gentleman kindly wrote to me last week and asked me to ensure that I was here today. You, Madam Speaker, know that I am a reasonable man and that on all occasions I seek to be helpful, so I went to great lengths to rearrange my diary to be here today. It comes as a bitter and devastating blow to be told, having gone to those lengths to be here and partake in further consideration of the Bill, that we are not being serious, that we are being pushed by outside bodies and are not considering matters in which we believe.

Mr. Barron: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially about his constituents, as I have a letter here from a Mr. John Pemberton—a constituent of his—emeritus professor of social and preventive medicine at Queen's university, Belfast. The hon. Gentleman wrote to him after Second Reading and sent him a copy of the Minister's speech, but not of my Second Reading speech. Will he tell us in the even-handed manner that he talks why he did that?

Mr. Hendry: I am delighted to explain. My hon. Friend the Minister made such an outstandingly good speech that it was imperative that my constituent should be given the chance to see it. Dr. Pemberton wrote to me and, in one of his letters, made it clear that he was writing as a member

of the Hope Valley Labour party—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and that, perhaps, explains one of the reasons why he was seeking to oppose the matters.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Just so that there is no confusion, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that a considerable number of his hon. Friends are strongly in support of the Bill to ban tobacco advertising.

Mr. Hendry: I fully appreciate that point and can assure my hon. Friend that I would be happy to send any of his speeches to my constituents, because they make powerful reading. He always makes a strong case, even were I to disagree with him.
We heard the most astonishing allegations earlier from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who said that it was inappropriate for hon. Members to be given guidance from outside organisations. The fact that the Advertising Association believes that it will be decimated by the Bill, that tobacconists believe that they will suffer grievously, and that my constituents who work in tobacco companies feel that they would be directly affected, is a matter on which they have a duty to inform us so that we can take their views into account. I find it reprehensible in the extreme that the hon. Member for Workington should suggest that, because we have listened to the pressures that have been put on us, we have in any way been operating improperly.
It is astonishing that those who introduced the Bill have not told yet told us who paid for its drafting. We have seen the hon. Member for Rother Valley scuttling off now and again to talk to representatives of Action on Smoking and Health. Perhaps he will inform us whether it gave legal advice in the drafting of the Bill, because if it is all right for him in that way, surely it is all right for us to get proper legal advice to ensure that our amendments are effectively tabled.

Ms Liz Lynne: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr.Campbell-Savours) said that the cost of drafting the amendments had been paid for by the tobacco industry, not just drafted by it.

Mr. Hendry: I have no idea where the money comes from to pay for them. Indeed, I do not know who paid ASH to draft the original Bill. It might may not have been ASH, because looking at the Bill, it appears that it was drafted by the central committee of the Stalinist party of Great Britain. Perhaps we should be told if it was involved.

Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend will realise that, since the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has not sprung to his feet to say that he did not receive help from ASH, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remind us that ASH receives money from the public purse—tobacco companies do not. So when the hon. Gentleman castigates the Government about the assistance that they give to hon. Members in other ways, he should castigate ASH, which is taking taxpayers' money to help him to introduce a Bill that will not only cost jobs, of course, but restrict the activities of so many people in the country who legitimately enjoy smoking.

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. But what we should also add, perhaps, is that a significant amount of taxpayers' money comes from


the revenue from cigarettes and that the tobacco companies, through their taxes, are helping to fund ASH to draft the Bill, which is against the industry.
I wish to concentrate on the amendments that are on the Order Paper, because they deal with two vital aspects: the first on the definition and nature of retail premises; and the second on communication and how adverts communicate. The first section of amendments specifically seek to allow tobacco advertisements to be displayed in any premises where tobacco products are sold, and removing the definition in the Bill that they should be "wholly or mainly" involved in selling tobacco. Nearly 250,000 outlets in this country sell cigarettes, but only a small proportion of those could conceivably be considered as specialist tobacco retailers. But what is worse is that the Bill gives no indication whatever of the criteria in defining what would be considered mainly or wholly involved in those matters. I will happily give way to my hon. Friend, given his direct knowledge.

Mr. Nigel Evans: As the House knows, I have a retail convenience store and so am one of the 250,000 retail outlets in this country selling tobacco products. I wonder what "wholly or mainly" means. For a store selling tobacco products, is it floor space? Does it relate to turnover of tobacco products, or does it relate to the percentage profit that retail outlets make from tobacco products? Who would enforce it? Who would decide it? Does it mean that the hard-pressed retailers and people who work in such outlets will then be faced with some clipboard bureaucrat from a town hall or Whitehall who will enforce the rules or regulations?

Mr. Hendry: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend has asked the wrong person. I cannot tell him the answer, because it is not covered by the Bill. The Bill is sloppily drafted and inadequate. It makes no definition whatever of how those terms should be defined.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of the changing level of tobacco consumption and the fact that many more outlets, such as supermarkets, sell cigarettes than did, say, 30 years ago, only a very small number of shops could say that the majority of their turnover comes from cigarettes. If one used the criterion of turnover, profits or whatever, it would relate to very few shops indeed, and it would be a draconian change in the law.

Mr. Hendry: I strongly agree. We could also take it a little further and look at the fact that, within a supermarket, where, proportionally, a small proportion of its floor space is given over to the retailing of tobacco, its sales and profits from that would be infinitely higher than that of a newsagent in a small retail outlet, where the amount of space given over to the sale of tobacco would be significantly higher as a proportion.

Mr. Barron: I feel that I should help the hon. Gentleman. Given that he sat on the Committee, I am surprised that he has not read the Bill in its entirety, which is a great shame given that it is such a small Bill in terms of its clauses. The Bill makes it an offence to advertise or promote tobacco products. Usually, if anybody in this country breaks the law, it is the police, not any bureaucrat from a local authority or anywhere else who takes action

against law breakers. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman reads his own Bill. He would then know that advertising can be displayed on premises that sell only tobacco products, provided that it cannot be seen outside. We are seeking to extend that principle.

Mr. Hendry: rose—

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who characterised the Bill as draconian. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) was educated at a school that excelled in classical studies, so he will know that Draco was an Athenian law maker under whose rule many trivial activities were punishable by death. Would it not be fairer to say that the existing legislative regime relating to tobacco products is draconian? Is not that borne out by the comments of, for example, Sir Richard Doll, who said that the Bill's introduction would save 70,000 premature deaths a year?

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the outstanding classical education that he and I received. I believe that I might even have been taught by my hon. Friend's father, in the course of getting a grade 1 pass in O-level Latin. Unfortunately, my Greek was less powerful, so I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assistance.
The principle in the Bill is that advertising encourages smokers to switch brands. We have covered that point in great detail already. Some £3 billion of sales are accounted for by switching by customers who are not committed to a particular brand. They are a legitimate target for tobacco companies in persuading their customers to choose one brand rather than another.

Mr. McCartney: Speaking of customers, since this debate started—with a somewhat cavalier attitude being taken by some Conservative Members—56 customers of tobacco products have already died, 10 children have been admitted to hospital and one child under the age of one has died prematurely because of the effect of tobacco products. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, because of Madam Speaker's strictures, I cannot do so. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the proceedings in Committee, he will learn that I addressed those precise points. I and the overwhelming majority of my hon. Friends, if not all of them, have a deep commitment to seeing the Government's targets in "The Health of the Nation" achieved.
The amendments would remove the necessity to take "wholly or mainly" into account and would allow a more generous application of the principle. They would also give the Secretary of State the power, if that provision is not removed, to decide how those terms should be determined.
The Bill also states that advertising inside premises should not be visible outside. That returns us to the whole issue of communication. Reference was made to the obscure nature of much tobacco advertising. I think that the most obscure of all that I have seen showed a red traffic light with a sign underneath saying "Smoking kills." I cannot understand any person saying, "Good heavens. Smoking kills, so I must go out and buy something to smoke." Another advertisement shows cut silk. What 16–year-old would say, "I have just seen an obscure poster with a piece of silk slashed in half, so I must start smoking —which otherwise I would not have done"?
Yesterday's Evening Standard published another advertisement that depicted a particularly vicious, man-eating plant, with the remains of the groin of a pair of purple jeans stuck in its mouth. That would put me off smoking for ever. It would make me wince with pain rather than make me think that smoking was an enjoyable activity. Much tobacco advertising is obscure, and on many adverts the only wording that appears is "Smoking kills you", "Smoking damages your health" or "Do not smoke in front of children." Such advertising is so unlikely to make people start smoking that it is almost irrelevant.

Mr. Forman: Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent every year on tobacco advertising. That advertising has become more and more subtle and subliminal—and as my hon. Friend said, it is principally about market share. Nevertheless, the fact remains that tobacco companies perceive it as worth while to undertake such advertising. Will my hon. Friend explain how that can be? Otherwise, the only possible explanation is that the tobacco companies are wasting their money.

Mr. Hendry: I tried to cover that point, but I will repeat my argument for my hon. Friend's benefit. Some £3,000 million a year is spent by smokers on one tobacco brand or another. Tobacco manufacturers do not spend hundreds of millions of pounds but about £50 million a year. If one can influence a £3,000 million market by spending £50 million, that—as I am sure my hon. Friend, who is immensely knowledgeable in economic and business matters, would agree—is a sensible business proposition.
The provisions in the Bill relating to advertisements visible outside premises are wholly unworkable. They would require premises to be boarded up like some unpleasant sex shop. I apologise for introducing unpleasant terminology but to abide with the law, it would have to be arranged that nobody could look through the window of any premises and see any tobacco advertising or other indication of the product. If some interfering little individual standing on a soap box with a periscope, looking over the signs in the window, could see such advertising, then, under the Bill, those premises would be breaking the law. That is nonsense.

Mr. Couchman: I am involved in a small company that runs a number of public houses that sell cigarettes in vending machines. Would my hon. Friend venture to suggest that under the Bill, if such vending machines could be seen from the window of those public houses, they would represent an offence—because they carry a row of advertisements above each column of the machine, indicating which brand is available? Would the bureaucrat concerned consider that an offence?

Mr. Hendry: Undoubtedly. It goes further. One sees in almost every newsagents a clock behind the counter that bears on its fascia the name of a tobacco product. Such an item would also be considered illegal. I do not believe that such clocks have ever made someone start smoking, yet under the Bill they would be made illegal.

Mr. Robert Banks: Is it not also the case that behind the counter at which one pays, near the entrance of many small shops, a rack of cigarettes is displayed? I could take my hon. Friend to a dozen or more shops in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster to illustrate that point. Anyone looking through the door of such a shop could see the cigarettes behind the counter.

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is right. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and I been given a greater opportunity to speak in Committee, we would have sought—

Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hendry: Of course.

Mr. Barron: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman missed the point that the Bill allows the advertising of tobacco products at the point of sale. A vending machine and a shop counter are both at the point of sale. However, hon. Members in all parts of the House know that the windows of school tuck shops are covered with advertisements for tobacco products, and that shop sun awnings, static advertising boards and illuminated signs promote tobacco products. They are not necessary to promote a product that is on sale inside a shop, properly placed. The hon. Gentleman should know that—it was debated at length in Committee.

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman fails to grasp the point that the Bill specifically states that people outside a shop should be unable to see point-of-sale adverts. It is possible that some little person from ASH may crawl on his hands and knees, look through a letter-box and see such an advert inside a shop. Such a possibility should be outside the terms of the Bill. The hon. Member for Rother Valley appears to argue that every shop window should be covered with placards and posters advertising something else to ensure that no one, however hard he tries, can see an advert of any description for a tobacco product.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The fascia in my retail establishment advertising Peter Stuyvesant has been replaced by Coca-Cola. We have only rather dull cigarette advertisements on the shop window giving the price of the product. I find it difficult to understand why certain people will not come into my retail establishment, but some people just pass the window, although they do look in. The majority of people do not smoke. If we ban advertising, however, we would deny people the opportunity to read that 17.5 per cent. of an advert that carries the words "smoking kills". Who will pay for such advertisements, which have a useful role in warning youngsters and all sorts of other people that smoking damages health, to appear in my shop window?

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is right.
In trying to educate the public about smoking with a view to achieving the "Health of the Nation" targets, we are trying to make the public and the consumer better informed. We want the public to know when a new low-tar cigarette is available. We want them to know that they should be encouraged to switch from a high-tar brand to a low-tar brand. That information is relevant to people.

Mr. Barron: That information could be given at the point of sale.

Mr. Hendry: It should not just be offered at the point of sale. Why not tell people who are currently smoking a high-tar cigarette that a low-tar equivalent of a similar taste is available, which would do less damage to their health? Such key facts are vital.
If we ban the advertising of tobacco, competition will be based on price. The winners will be those cheap, imported


high-tar cigarettes, which will cause more damage to the health of our people and set us back in our battle to try to discourage people from smoking.

Mr. Forman: I can see why my hon. Friend and many hon. Members would want information to be conveyed particularly to young potential smokers about the dangers of smoking and the fact that it causes death. Why should the tobacco industry want to spend money deliberately to reduce its own market? That is entirely counter-intuitive and that is why I doubt the good faith of the tobacco industry.

Mr. Hendry: I will endeavour to answer that. If a market is switching, producers will target advertising towards it. When my hon. Friend or his wife go out to buy Persil or Daz, they will be aware of the advertising campaign that endeavours to persuade them to buy one brand rather than the other. The producers do not tell my hon. Friend to wash his clothes more often just so my hon. Friend will buy more washing powder. Petrol producers do not tell him to drive another 100 miles, which he had no intention of doing, just so he will buy more petrol. Producers will simply argue that there is a legitimate market which is capable of being switched and that they are trying to influence it through legitimate methods. That is the purpose of advertising tobacco.
I have never smoked and no tobacco advert will persuade me to start. No tobacco advert is so powerful, however hard producers may try, that it will make me smoke a single cigarette during the rest of my life. I accept, however, that tobacco advertising may encourage people to switch from one brand to another.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because he is entering into legitimate debate. Why is it then that there has been a marked tendency in recent tobacco advertising, which anyone would notice with his own eyes, to concentrate advertising upon young women—females between the age of 12 up to 25? Is not there more than just an unusual correlation between that focus in advertising and the fact that that particular group of potential or actual smokers has expanded faster than any other group?

Mr. Hendry: I understand that point, but we come back to the crux of the debate. The tobacco advertising that I have seen is obscure and is as unlikely to appeal to a young woman as it is to an old man. I have no evidence to suggest that producers are deliberately targeting the group to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) referred, but if it is felt that they are targeting people improperly, a voluntary agreement, which has already been strengthened 10 times since it was introduced, can be brought into play.
That agreement could be strengthened even further and I hope that we may learn today that that has been agreed. There is scope within existing legislation and the agreement for the exact concern to which my hon. Friend referred to be taken into account. Given the way in which the voluntary agreement has been working so far, to start imposing punitive fines and making illegal the advertising of a legally available product, the makers of which which employ thousands of people in our constituencies, would be extremely dangerous and could not be justified.

Sir Peter Emery: I had hoped to make this short point in a speech, but I shall make it even shorter in an intervention on my hon. Friend, who I know is interested in these matters. I draw his attention to the study by Pierce Lee and Gilpin, which ran from 1943 to 1989. It conducted surveys in 1970, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1987 and 1988 about smoking by adolescents. The study's conclusion, which considers the findings year by year, states:
In this study, we have demonstrated that tobacco advertising has a temporal and specific relationship to smoking uptake in girls younger than the legal age to purchase cigarettes. Our findings add to the evidence that tobacco advertising plays an important role in encouraging young people to begin this lifelong addiction before they are old enough to fully appreciate its long-term health risks. The prudent public health approach to prevent an other increase in initiation among young people is urgent action to extend the ban on tobacco advertising to cover all forms of advertising and promotion.

Mr. John Carlisle: This is a speech.

Sir Peter Emery: That was a direct quotation; it was not my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It sounded like a mini-speech to me.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful for your guidance on what I would traditionally call an Adjournment debate speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and I have discussed the matter on many occasions. I refer him to the clear view of the Chief Medical Officer, the foremost medical authority for the Government, who, when asked whether tobacco advertising encouraged children to smoke, answered:
No. I think it's partly a cultural thing and it's also about the family and the school and their colleagues and people they talk to. All of that kind of peer pressure sometimes increases smoking.
He did not say that cigarette advertising was a factor.
The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys study into the factors that encouraged young children to smoke identified six or seven other factors, including peer group pressure, friends at school, parents at home and older brothers and sisters. Those are much more important; tobacco advertising did not feature.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman will remember the debate in Committee on the OPCS report and on what makes people start to smoke: Many arguments against banning tobacco advertising were published to stop my Bill. The procedures of the House may stop it, but those arguments will not. Our debates in Committee have clearly slipped the hon. Gentleman's mind. One of the arguments published suggested that young people have
relatively less negative views about smoking.
That was accepted by the majority of members in Committee. The Health Education Authority has expressed negative views about smoking; less negative views are achieved by advertising and promoting smoking.

Mr. Hendry: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has a hazy recollection of the Committee. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) continually tabled amendments with which he said he did not agree but on which he then forced Divisions, leaving all hon. Members in Committee confused about his aims. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will recall our debates in Committee, where it was clearly said that many factors encourage children to smoke. The "Health of The Nation"


targets for young children smoking have already been met in households where the parents do not smoke. They have not been met in households where parents do smoke.
Children from both households go past the same adverts every day, they read the same adverts in magazines and they are under the same pressure from advertising. The fundamental difference is that in one household they are conditioned to smoking by the family environment and in the other they are not. I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are looking at me as if to say that this is not wholly relevant to the amendments, so I shall make progress after I have given way.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have listened to the debate from the beginning, except when I left the Chamber to have a smoke. The figures with which I have been provided show that in 1980 the number of 16-year-olds and over who smoked was 20.2 million whereas about 16 million do so today. If that is correct, it appears that the present voluntary arrangement, regularly updated and strengthened, is working, so what is all the fuss about?

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend clearly derived tremendous strength from his momentary absence from the Chamber, which perhaps endorses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) to the effect that a little tobacco can occasionally do one a bit of good. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). Our concern is to prove that the voluntary agreement can be tightened and be used to tackle abuses where they exist.

Mr. Robert Banks: Is it not better to have a voluntary agreement than legislation that ties everyone up, creates complexity and leads to mistaken interpretation and all the other rubbish that stems from legislation that has not been properly considered?

Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those of us who have listened to and participated in the debate and who have analysed the facts recognise that the case against the Bill is overwhelming. Many Labour Members who are not present today will nevertheless vote in favour. They will not listen to the arguments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to the arguments and I am wondering whether they relate to premises used for the sale of tobacco products.

Mr. Barron: rose—

Mr. Hendry: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rother Valley if what he has to say relates to that point.

Mr. Barron: What I have to say relates to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the effectiveness of the voluntary agreement. In February this year the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), answered a question about the voluntary agreement and the findings of the Smee report, with which all hon. Members will be familiar.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying from the amendment. We should be discussing premises.

Mr. Hendry: I know that the House is anxious to make progress so I shall not detain it much longer.
We have two concerns. First, the definition of premises in the Bill is inadequate. Secondly, I hope that I have been able to prove that it is ludicrously full of loopholes,

especially in relation to the notion that an advertisement should not be visible from outside certain premises. The Bill is fundamentally flawed. The fact that we have discussed these amendments at tremendous length proves our serious and genuine concern, and I hope that the House will support us.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): rose—

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the normal practice that, if an hon. Member on one side of the House rises to his feet after a Member from the other side has spoken, he is given the opportunity to speak? I, like several of my colleagues, have been waiting for a considerable time to make a contribution. I had already made it clear behind the Speaker's Chair that I wished to speak briefly, as had the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne).
Conservative Members have been controlling the debate, thus excluding the alternative viewpoints of those of us who served on the Committee and who have done a considerable amount of work. It now appears that the Minister is going to make a statement before we have been able to contribute.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to participate. I am not aware that the Minister is going to make a statement. I understand that he is going to speak to the amendments, and the House will be interested in what he has to say.

Mr. McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is to make a statement to the House, as I said on my previous point of order. The Minister and I have spoken about the matter. This is a total manipulation of the time of Opposition Members. We are entitled to make a contribution in turn; it is the turn of an Opposition Member to make a contribution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will call hon. Members as they catch his eye. I am sure that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) may be fortunate in catching my eye during the debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is on exactly the same point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is the same, I have dealt with it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Well, it is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is the same point of order, I have dealt with it. The hon. Gentleman must take his seat.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Sir Peter Emery: No. You ruled quite rightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the previous debate that discussion of the voluntary agreement did not arise under the amendment that was then being discussed. Will that ruling apply to Ministers, as it applied to Back-Bench Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that I am not aware that any statement—I repeat the word "statement"—is to be made by the Minister. I shall be interested, as will the House, in listening to what the Minister says as it relates to the amendments.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To clarify the position on a statement, perhaps the Minister could, for a second, come to the Dispatch Box —[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McCartney: This is an important and serious matter of debate and procedure. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the matter and advise us whether there will be placed in the Vote Office, either at the beginning or the end of his contribution, a statement for hon. Members. It is my clear understanding that that is precisely what will happen. I asked for a copy of the statement and the Minister informed me that I could get it from the Vote Office when he concluded his speech on the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that the Chair has no knowledge of any statement. The present occupant of the Chair is not aware of what has been going on behind it. [Interruption.] Order. I call the Minister to speak on the amendments.

Mr. Sackville: I am glad to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would have done so earlier, but my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was in good form and we had a short procedural interruption. I am glad to—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us establish the precedent. May we have an assurance that you will deprecate the act of any Minister who today places a statement in the Vote Office after he has spoken. In your own words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not a statement. The Minister is speaking to the amendments. Could you give us warning of the fact—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not need that assurance from the Chair. If the Minister or anyone else strays outside the amendments, the Chair will bring that person to order.

Mr. Sackville: I shall address the amendments and in doing so, I shall update the House on the progress in negotiations between my—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be clairvoyant; the Chair is not. I have not yet heard anything that enables me to pull up the Minister. If hon. Members will momentarily put their crystal balls away and listen to what the Minister says, they can safety leave the matter with the Chair.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the Minister start to say that he would update the House on the negotiations. Would you confirm that, normally, ministerial statements on a Friday are made at 11 o'clock, with notice, but that if the Minister wishes to make a statement, he could still do so at 2.30 pm, ensuring that the usual channels have a copy beforehand, and so that Opposition Members have the opportunity to ask questions? That would avoid creating the appearance that the Minister is using his statement to avoid questions from this side of the House and is part of a filibuster.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I confirm, if I need to, that statements are normally made at 11 o'clock on a Friday. I repeat that I have not been informed that there is any statement to be made. If there is any attempt to talk outside the amendments before the House, the Minister or anybody else will be pulled up.

Mr. Sackville: During my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to update the House on negotiations that have taken place between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and the industry on matters pertaining directly to advertising at point of sale, which are highly relevant to the amendments and, which, indeed, in my view, make the Bill and its amendments obsolete and redundant.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendments are clearly structured on the specific subject of retail matters, which is in no way covered in the scope of the negotiations about the voluntary agreement. I put it again to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are being manipulated in the House in respect of the matter. The rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House are being abused and it is about time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will not allow hon. Members on either side to be abused. The Minister will have to watch what he says very carefully. I will not tolerate any debate whatever outside the amendments, which address retailing on premises. If there is anything said outside that subject, which can be considered at Third Reading, that is a matter for consideration at that time. At present, I must insist that, if the Minister—I am not suggesting that he is—is intending to introduce any subject that may be outside the amendments, covering matters which could resemble a statement, the Chair will not allow him to do so.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair when I raised a point of order at the commencement of today's proceedings, pointing out that the voluntary agreement between the tobacco companies and the Department of Health had being going through a state of renegotiation, which had, effectively, been concluded last night. The Bill, if passed in its entirety, will have the effect of precluding that voluntary agreement and therefore it is extremely important that we hear today what the state of those negotiations is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not important to this batch of amendments.

Mr. Couchman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On two occasions I asked Madam


Speaker this morning why she did not allow new clause 3 to be debated this morning. That would have allowed the Minister to give us a wide-ranging update of the position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker replied to the hon. Gentleman this morning. I heard and I have heard her rulings since I have been out of the Chair. Hon. Members do not need the Chair to rule that, when we are discussing a batch of amendments, that is what we are debating. The subject of the amendments before us, as I have already said, is retail sales on premises. The Chair cannot allow anybody—the Minister or any other hon. Member—to stray outside that area. The Chair will not allow that. It is no good for hon. Members to keep getting up on points of order on that aspect. I have ruled that we are discussing the amendments to which the debate will be addressed.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the point of order will not try to question the ruling that I have just given or be on that subject. I have ruled on it and that is final.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I do not wish to challenge your ruling or previous rulings. It is not an attempt to undermine your ruling in principle.
There is a major matter of principle involved because the voluntary agreement specifically excludes advertising within premises. That being so, the amendment cannot be used for the purpose that the Minister seems to have in mind. As I have said, the voluntary agreement specifically excludes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is only repeating what the Chair has already said.

Mr. Alan Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that it would be sensible if we were to have the opportunity to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to report on the state of negotiations between the Government and the industry. The difficulty, as you have explained to us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to allow that to happen while remaining within our rules of order.
Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be in order if hon. Members who have tabled amendments were to withdraw them? We would then be able to proceed immediately to Third Reading. Would you then be so tolerant, following such a departure from the normal conventions of the House, to say that whereas it is normally not in order for us to debate on Third Reading—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member wishes to be helpful. He knows full well that if hon. Members want to withdraw their amendments, they are free to do so. It is a matter for them to decide.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that you have a difficult job to keep order within the House. Would you agree that one of the principal functions of a Government Whip is to ensure that you are assisted in that task? Would it not be helpful for the Government Whip to send for the Leader of the House, and for the Leader of the House to arrange for us to hear a statement at 2.30 pm so that information can be given to the House and questioned? On that basis, the Minister

should ensure that he does not refer again to any voluntary agreement when he speaks to the group of amendments before us.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A Minister is a Member of the House. Surely it is perfectly within his rights to comment on any aspect of a group of amendments that is before the House? It is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With great respect, the hon. Member is trying to tell his granny how to suck eggs. We are discussing a batch of amendments. Every hon. Member knows what they are about—certainly the Chair does—and that is what the debate is to be about. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. I do not want to rule him out of order. If he directs his remarks to the amendments, I shall not have to do so.

Mr. Sackville: I shall be brief because of the time that we have lost over the past few minutes with points of order and interruptions. I shall merely say what I began to say. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the tobacco industry have reached heads of agreement on matters relating to point-of-sale advertising. In particular, all shop-front advertising will be withdrawn by 1996. That relates directly to the amendments. There are other important and significant changes that were made to the voluntary agreement.

Mr. Nigel Evans: To take up what my hon. Friend has said about shop-front advertising, will the agreement also prohibit advertisements in shop windows drawing attention only to the price of cigarettes and other tobacco products, or particular brands of cigarettes or other tobacco products?

Mr. Sackville: The full details of the agreement—on this and other parts of it—will be published within a few weeks. We shall release today the heads of agreement, which include the point that all shop-front advertising will be withdrawn by 1996. Copies of a statement that involve all these matters are in the Vote Office for all the House to see.

Ms Lynne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that a statement will be available in the Vote Office. He previously said that no statement was being made. When is the statement due to be made —now, or perhaps at 2.30pm? It certainly was not made at 11 o'clock this morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Speaker is not aware of when any statement is to be made.

1 pm

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. At the risk of continually repeating myself—I hope that the Minister will help me on this—we are discussing the amendments. There is no statement in front of the House. I repeat that we are discussing the amendments and that the Minister must stick to them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a separate point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is—it is about the Vote Office. Will you instruct the Vote Office that it is not to hand out statements to anyone relating to the debate that has taken place today, because it would be an abuse of our procedure? The Minister has just announced that statements are to be made available subsequent to the statement that he has made at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is addressing the House. He knows which amendments are before the House. If the Minister strays from them, he will be ruled out of order.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a completely different point of order?

Mr. Bennett: Yes. I understand that at least one copy of the statement was released by the Vote Office. At present, other hon. Members are having difficulty obtaining copies. Surely, once one copy has been released, all copies should be released and all hon. Members should have an opportunity to obtain a copy. Surely it is an abuse of the House for a Minister to release a statement in this way and for us not to be able to ask questions on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister can place whatever statements he likes in the Vote Office—but that is separate from the debate. I hope that I do not have to repeat that again.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This place is becoming a farce—it is being abused by the Government all the time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I request the Minister to contain his remarks to the amendments in front of the House.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a separate point of order?

Mr. McCartney: Yes. I apologise for the fact that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been place in an impossible position by the Government's business managers today. You are respected in all parts of the House. I want to make it clear that the Opposition regard what is happening as an important matter of principle. The press release that has been issued on the statement quotes what the Minister is purported to have said at the Dispatch Box during the Report stage of the Bill. It gives direct quotes from what the Minister has said.
That is a serious abuse of the House and the Chair, and a complete misuse of the procedures of the House. It places you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in an impossible position and —which is as important—it places hon. Members in a position whereby they can be manipulated and used by the Government business managers and officials in the Department of Health, acting on behalf of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. He knew that the statement was to be issued, but, during the past two hours when questioned about it, he chose, cynically, to say nothing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister must take full responsibility for whatever he includes in any statements. If they are wrong, he has to carry the responsibility.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the points of order that hon. Members wish to put to me are on the same subject, I shall not take them. I have ruled on the matter and shall now call the Minister. The Chair is responsible for debate in the House, not what the Minister has put in the Vote Office. If there are points of order which are completely different to those on which I have ruled, I will hear them.[SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker."] I hope that they are different points of order and that hon. Members are not attempting to take advantage of the Chair or the House.

Mr. Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your advice? I do not want to go too far back, but I came third in the private Member's ballot last year and consequently I have tried to bring a Bill through the House with the guidance of the Chair, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I must say that I have received good guidance in both situations.
On Second Reading, a statement was made at 11 o'clock in a proper manner by the Department of Health in relation to a matter which concerned my regional health authority. Clearly, that statement took up time which I thought had been allotted to me by the House for my private Member's Bill.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A press release has been passed to me which quotes a statement allegedly made during the debate on Report by the Minister which does not relate to issues contained in my Bill. Is that a right and proper way for the private Members' Bill procedure to be used by Ministers?

Ms Lynne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. As a relatively new hon. Member, I have never experienced a press release being put out when the Minister has not made the statement in the House. The release says:
Mr. Sackville made the announcement during Report Stage of Kevin Barron MP's Private Members Bill on tobacco advertising.
Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With great respect to the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, I already dealt with the matters raised in those points of order. There can be no further points of order on that issue.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you think that when the hon. Member who has promoted the Bill named the day, he ought to have recalled that it is in fact Friday the 13th?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is beginning to wonder.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It must be a different point of order, as I have already ruled on the others.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The arrogance of the Government and their supporters is such that they are prepared to make remarks such as the one made by the hon.


Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Fourteen years of Conservative rule in this country is destroying the country's institutions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: From memory, I think that "Erskine May" states that to misrepresent the proceedings of Parliament is a contempt. The Minister has quoted in the press release a statement which he has not made. He is therefore technically in contempt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Complaints on contempt should be made to the Speaker in writing. There can be no further points of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must get back to the debate and the amendments before the House.

Mr. Sackville: The main heads of the agreement which we have reached have been placed in the press office. I shall seek to catch your eye later today about the other parts of the agreement which do not relate to premises and to point of sale advertising.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: For the moment, I shall rest my remarks by commending the agreement to the House. It is a major step forward in the voluntary agreement which exists between the industry and the Department.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister giving way?

Mr. Sackville: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. McCartney: Today, like last week, has descended into a shambolic attempt by the Government to manipulate the private Members' Bill procedure of the House. It is quite scandalous. The House has before it a measure which was approved without dissent at Second Reading and which has all-party support—

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the amendments, or is he making the statement which he would have done had we—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may safely leave that to the Chair.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman likes to niggle me. He has never won an argument, and he will not win one either. In Committee, hon. Members from both sides of the House debated the aspect of premises in great detail. These amendments are wrecking amendments. The reason why they are wrecking amendments on behalf of the tobacco industry—

Mr. Peter Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree that I am not one for wasting the time of the House. Earlier today, I asked whether all the amendments on the amendment paper were in order, and the Speaker ruled that they were. Wrecking amendments would not be in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the amendments on the amendment paper today are in order; otherwise, they would not be on it.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) is being silly—I never challenged the validity of the amendments. I am saying that in my opinion they are wrecking amendments.
The reason why the amendments have been placed on the amendment paper and why they are being so vociferously supported by a small group of Conservative Members is to protect a market. The Government have already indicated that that is the case. Let us look at what the amendments attempt to do with regard to the market. It is 50 million packets of cigarettes sold each year to children between 11 and 15 years of age in premises owned by companies and individuals who support the amendments before the House.
In Committee, where excellent work was done, the Under-Secretary said virtually nothing about the matters contained in the amendments, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee rejected them. The amendments were rejected on the simple premise that the Bill is about child protection. It is about protecting the children identified in the Government's document "The Health of the Nation", in the independent review of tobacco advertising by Dr. Smee and by the Government's independent advisers. The figures set out in "The Health of the Nation" showed that tobacco advertising was a significant factor in attracting young people to smoking and sustaining their involvement in the smoking habit.

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am on his side on the broad principle of the argument. Is he aware that the press release, of which mention has already been made, says that there will be a ban on advertising for tobacco products on computer games and on other computer software? It is interesting that all my hon. Friends who have made a case against the Bill are saying that there should be no ban; yet in the press release the Government are advocating and agreeing a ban with the industry. Is there not some rather interesting contradiction there?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If he has an opportunity to read the press release —it is out of order to discuss the press release at present —he will see that there is a whole series of ambiguities. With regard to some matters, there is a less than forceful response from the industry, as promised by the Minister of State at Second Reading. Therefore, the statement is totally inadequate.

Mr. Nigel Evans: rose—

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I promise to give way to both hon. Gentlemen in a moment, especially to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), as someone who is involved in the industry. When he gets up, I hope that he will accept at least some responsibility for the 50 million packets of cigarettes a year that are sold through the premises of his hon. Friends and others who are involved in selling cigarettes.
On the Government Benches, there are two groups involved in terms of the amendment. There are the Conservatives Against Tobacco, and there is a tobacco


industry party—I should call them TIP. By God—do they tip the industry. In the past two years, they have paid £200,000 to the Tory party coffers. One of the biggest contributors made it plain that the sole reason for the contribution was to maintain opposition to the introduction of a tobacco advertising ban. There was a rejection of that philosophy by an overwhelming majority of hon. Members including Conservative Members and members of the Cabinet who support the Bill's concept in principle. Despite that, a few Conservative Members will destroy an opportunity to protect millions of potential victims of tobacco advertising.

Mr. Robert Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the difficulties with which you have had to contend. You made the correct judgment that the debate should centre on the amendments. What I have heard in the past two or three minutes was clearly way off beam.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman just beat me to my feet. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) must stick to the amendments.

Mr. McCartney: I am more than trying to do that, because I am dealing with premises and the resources to promote products inside and outside those premises. We are also debating the use and influence of those resources to maintain the status quo. That is what the debate is about. The House must decide whether we as a society are prepared to pass the amendments or allow them to wreck the concept of the Bill and be prepared to accept the fact that 110,000 of our fellow citizens die each year as a direct consequence of the activities of the tobacco industry.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about deaths, but we are discussing advertising and its banning and not the harm that tobacco products could do. I accept all that he says about that. The amendments relate to retail premises, and I welcome the fact that in my retail premises sales are decreasing. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the warning on advertising in premises which will be allowed when the voluntary agreement is in place will take up 20 per cent. of the advertisement and not just 17.5 per cent. as before?

Mr. McCartney: That means that 80 per cent. of the advertisement will still persuade people to kill themselves for the profits of the tobacco companies. If the hon. Gentleman was really serious, and as he has acknowledged the damage that his company is doing by selling the product, I shall give way to him if he is prepared to say that his company will forthwith withdraw tobacco products from sale, because, as he has said, they seriously damages the health of his customers.

Mr. Nigel Evans: There are 225,000 outlets in this country and 1 million people are employed in the manufacture or sale of those products. In that context, for my company to give up would be useless. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman be honest and say that he would favour a total ban on the sale of tobacco products?

Mr. McCartney: It is significant that, when placed in the position of protecting his product base and profit, the

hon. Gentleman chose that stance and did not choose the Government's position on the medical harm, death and injury to many of his customers and potential constituents.

Mr. Nigel Evans: rose—

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member should settle down. I shall give way to him in a moment.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the lethal effects of tobacco consumption. In particular, I applaud him for drawing attention to the damage done to children. My intervention gives me an opportunity to correct something that I said earlier. Sir Richard Doll said that a ban on advertising would prevent the premature deaths of 70,000 children who are now living. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) says, the Government are on record as saying that smoking is by far the biggest single preventable cause of death. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, according to newspaper reports just before Christmas, the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, which was given in a submission to the Cabinet, was:
My Department's review of the effect of tobacco advertising suggests that further restrictions up to and including a ban could be expected to reduce smoking.
Does that not demonstrate that the Government's analysis makes it quite clear that we should move well beyond the voluntary agreement and have a firm and definitive ban?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, both in his analysis and in the fact that it is based on propaganda not from Opposition Members or from opponents of the tobacco industry, but from within Government and their medical advisers. It is incredible that the Government, despite the overwhelming evidence from their internal inquiries, choose to turn their face away, and, in so doing, be inexplicably involved in the potentially premature deaths of a potential 70,000 children in the United Kingdom. Only the Minister can say why a Minister at the Department of Heath would take such foolish action and is driven to the point, which I was making earlier—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Having read the Bill and studied it carefully, and having heard every minute of the proceedings this morning—I did not miss much in Committee—I thought that it dealt with the advertising of tobacco products, not the banning of that legitimate substance. Perhaps I have been misled over the past hours, days and weeks, possibly not on the intent of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, which is pretty obvious, but on the fact that the Bill is, perhaps, precluding something that might be coming. Are we keeping to the subject or not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his interpretation is quite correct. There has been quite a bit of straying from the amendments, on both sides of the House. The Chair has attempted to stick religiously to the debate in question. That is what the Chair intends doing for the rest of the debate. I draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Makerfield.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who raised a point of order, is well noted in the House as an expert in misleading in terms of debate. [Interruption.] The position in relation to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman reflects, I think that he would wish to withdraw that remark.

Mr. McCartney: I was—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have suggested to the hon. Member for Makerfield that, on reflection, he may wish to withdraw that remark. I should be grateful if he would.

Mr. McCartney: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I firmly believe that that is the case. Having sat for many hours with the hon. Member for Luton, North on the Bill —Second Reading and today—I am well convinced that that is the position. I am thoroughly disgusted by the tactics deployed by some hon. Members when we are here to try to save the lives of so many young people. If it meant my being put out of this place—

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the situation on whether accusing another hon. Member, in parliamentary language, of "misleading the House" is legitimate and, therefore, whether the accusation should be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I request the hon. Member for Makerfield to reconsider and withdraw the remark that he made.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. McCartney: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman does it deliberately, and, to be honest with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is good for the Prime Minister is good for right hon. and hon. Members. The position is clear. I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to use the tactics that he has when so many children's lives are at risk. I am passionately committed to that issue. I am disgusted with the tactics that he has deployed and the misuse of this place by hon. Members when so much is at stake. I believe firmly in what I said. I am not withdrawing it. It was a fair remark in relation to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I have not finished my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is getting itself in a bit of a mess. I give to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) the same advice that I gave the Minister. He must address his remarks to the amendments.

Mr. McCartney: I am addressing the amendments, which concern preventing the sale of cigarettes, mainly to children aged between 11 and 15.

Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may have misheard, but I thought that you requested the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) to withdraw his remarks and the aspersions that he cast against me. I am not sure that he did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Makerfield rephrased his remarks, which satisfied the Chair.

Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I confirm that was the case.

Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: Not for the moment.
Ninety per cent. of smokers pick up the habit as children or teenagers, and 60 per cent. before the age of 13. Much of that is a consequence of advertising that encourages them to smoke, some of it on retail premises. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Evidence for that comes not just from this side of the House but from the Government's own report by Professor Smee, which is a damning indictment of the Government's failure to act appropriately. Indicating that, Professor Smee also estimated the number of lives that would be saved if his recommendations were introduced. Conservative Members may be damning of me, but more important than their snide remarks from a sedentary position is the fact that the Government damned themselves by ignoring that independent advice.

Mr. Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman at least agree—because he is a fair-minded man—that the removal of all shop-front advertising of tobacco products is a considerable step forward? Does not that illustrate what can be achieved by voluntary agreement?

Mr. McCartney: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not take an interest in the subject earlier. We could have advised him that since the introduction of the voluntary agreement, 1.1 million of our fellow citizens have died as a direct result of medical complaints arising from tobacco industry products. The voluntary agreement has been a disaster. It has failed to stem the flow of deaths and injury, which is why the Government introduced targets in "The Health of the Nation". They also suggested in statement after statement that they accept that tobacco advertising contributes to such deaths. We should secure from the Government agreement on how to proceed.

Mr. Alan Howarth: rose—

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before anything else, I remind the House that hon. Members are continuing to stray from the amendments. I say for the last time that if Members of either Front Bench or Back Benchers continue to go wide of the amendments—and that has been most prevalent—the Chair will instruct them to resume their seats.

Mr. Howarth: As to advertising at the point of sale, when the hon. Gentleman suggested that advertising has a damaging effect on children, several of my hon. Friends shouted "Rubbish" from a sedentary position. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on an observation from a senior and respected figure of the advertising industry, Mr. Adrian Vickers? He said:
Advertising is only one of the factors that can influence children to take up smoking—but it is the only one that can be eliminated simply and quickly.

Mr. McCartney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has made yet another perceptive remark.
Evidence collected not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world reveals how the pernicious use of advertising attracts young people to smoking and sustains their habit. That is why the amendments are so damaging to the principle of the Bill.
1.30 pm
The amendments are designed to protect the sale of tobacco products, but during today 50 young children will be admitted to accident and emergency units and detained in hospital because of the effects of those products. Despite that, Conservative Members are prepared to support amendments that will mortally damage the Bill. I cannot accept that there are any conceivable circumstances in which right-minded right hon. and hon. Members could support a policy that is so overwhelmingly damaging to the health of the young people of our nation.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman has quoted at some length from the report written by Dr. Smee. Will he concede that paragraph 68(ii) and (iii) of the summary and conclusions of that report state that the evidence that advertising increases consumption is not reliable? It states:
Other factors such as the smoking behaviour of parents and siblings are more important.
Dr. Smee also concludes that those children who react most positively to advertising are already disposed to smoke.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would suggest that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has strayed very wide of the amendment, which concerns advertising on retail premises. It is fairly obvious that my pleas, if that is the right word, for hon. Members to try to speak to the amendments have fallen on deaf ears. I will no longer be tolerant; hon. Members must address their remarks to the amendments before the House. If hon. Members fail to do so, the Chair will have to take action.

Mr.McCartney: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McCartney: Before I give way, I will try to ensure that I do not thrown out. In the past, I have managed to avoid that and I do not intend that to happen today.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) repeated a quotation that was frequently cited on Second Reading and in Committee. On each occasion, however, hon. Members have taken that quote out of the overall context of the report and have ignored its recommendation to ban tobacco advertising.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it clear that the report's recommendations were inconvenient to a Conservative Government who need hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to finance their operations? They are prepared to do anything as long as they get that money, including allowing advertising of tobacco products on retail premises as well.

Mr. McCartney: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is a friend or a member of the opposition, because he is trying, quite cleverly, to get me thrown out of the House. I have no problem with his remarks. I am aware that Conservative Members who support the Bill find it embarrassing that such payments from the tobacco industry are made. Those payments undermine the campaign, which we all want to succeed, to reduce tobacco consumption among our general population and, in particular, among young people.

Mr. Robert Banks: rose—

Rev. William McCrea: rose—

Mr. McCartney: Hon. Members are jumping up and down, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).

Rev. William McCrea: Hon. Members seem to give the impression that advertising has little effect on the minds of young people. Can the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) therefore tell me why the tobacco industry will spend millions of pounds on advertising if it has no effect on the minds of those who watch television?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling and devastating remark. He is correct: the purpose of that advertising is to replace the 300 customers a day who are killed by smoking. Without that customer replacement, consumption would fall even further. It is as cynical as that. That is why Parliament should not allow itself to be manipulated by cynical supporters of the industry and should not allow public health strategy to be undermined by the amendments.
Hon. Members who have supported the amendments have said nothing about the consequences for current or potential cigarette purchasers. Their comments have been directed not to purchasers of tobacco products but to the vested interests of the organisations that produce them. Interestingly, those comments have been made by hon. Members who argue that the House does little to protect consumers but mainly protects big interests.
Conservative Members who have supported the amendments have not wanted to debate the consequences of smoking, but evidence from the Department of Health shows that advertising in premises stimulates interest among young people. It is irrelevant whether that is intentional.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most powerful reasons for rejecting the amendments is the advice that I have received from every GP practice in my constituency and from Professor Ashton of the north-west region, who is held in high regard by the Minister and who has advised me to support the Bill?

Mr. McCartney: No one in the United Kingdom, other than the industry, its front organisations and, it would seem, Ministers in the Department of Health, supports the amendments, which may scupper the Bill. All organisations involved in health overwhelmingly support the Bill because the consequences of maintaining the status quo inevitably will fall on GP surgeries and acute wards in the NHS.

Mr. Alan Howarth: In his consideration of the amendments, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the importance of having regard to the interests of the consumer as well as those of the industry. I know that he is anxious to be fair, but does he agree that it is excellent that the Government are promoting health education in schools, are funding a national television advertising campaign to reinforce and develop their broader efforts of health education and are encouraging GPs to persuade their patients not to take up smoking?
Is it not remarkably contradictory, and does it not undermine the force of all the other very good efforts by the Government, that they should continue to tolerate the advertising of tobacco products, even though it may be more circumscribed by a new voluntary code?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. On Second Reading I gave fulsome credit to the Government for the targets outlined in "The Health of the Nation" and highlighted the need for an overall policy. This part of the Bill is a small but significant part of the attempt to change the attitude to smoking and the continuation of the habit.

Mr. Robert Banks: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am certainly not ignoring him; how could I, having recently spent three weeks in the Australian outback with him? I have very fond memories of that, but they are not relevant to the amendments.
Those who spoke in favour of the amendments deliberately failed to mention the evidence that shows that children see, remember and correctly identify tobacco products. Studies have proved the correlation between that awareness and the commencement of smoking, which is why the industry puts so much effort into advertising and why it is putting so much effort into getting these amendments accepted. The amendments are an attempt to retain the status quo.
It was interesting that when the Minister spoke to the amendments he did not challenge the status quo or say whether he was opposed to it. He did not even rebuke his colleagues who made the ludicrous suggestion that in some circumstances smoking was good for one's health. As I understand it, even the tobacco industry gave up the ghost on that argument some years ago, but perhaps it now has further evidence to prove that that suggestion is not ludicrous. If the Minister is serious about the issue, he should state clearly what the Government are going to do to alter the status quo as defined in the amendments.
If the status quo remains unchanged, not only will the Bill be scuppered but the Minister's statement outlining further changes to the voluntary code will be completely meaningless. Unless steps are taken to break the link between young people identifying tobacco products from advertisements and their beginning to smoke, another generation of young people aged between 11 and 13 will take up tobacco. Next year, another group of young people will be smoking 50 million packets of cigarettes bought on the strength of advertising which the amendments seek to protect.

Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. I do not know why he is being so timid because I wish to try to help concentrate his mind on the amendments we are discussing. He has already spoken for about 42 minutes. I have no difficulty with the idea of banning the advertising of tobacco products on shop fronts and in shop windows, but I disagree whole-heartedly with the idea that advertisements inside premises, but which can be seen from outside, should be banned. That would reduce the whole legislative process to a farce and would create so much complexity—for example, could one advertise in a store provided that any door within a few feet of the advertisement was not open? It would also make it difficult to define "premises". Kiosks on railway stations sell tobacco products, sweets, newspapers and magazines. Would they be breaking the law if they carried small advertisements for tobacco products?

Mr. McCartney: I was going to say that I leave the best interventions to last, but, having heard the hon. Gentleman,

I have changed my mind. Can anyone tell me of someone dying from the passive reading of a magazine? One can certainly die from passive smoking or from taking up the habit oneself. It is ridiculous for hon. Members to attempt to defend the indefensible in the interests of the tobacco industry, as we see in the amendments.
1.45 pm
I repeat that the amendments would maintain the status quo, which goes against the Government's policy in the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation". The targets in the document relate to the absolute necessity—the imperative necessity—to get children out of the clutches of the tobacco industry. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) pointed out a few moments ago, the Bill would save the lives of 70,000 children.
Hon. Members should contemplate what they have said about the amendments when they watch Manchester United and Chelsea. They should think for a second that all the seats could be filled by children who will die early because of tobacco consumption. They should think about the attendance at Wembley. That is the extent of the catastrophe in public health which the amendments would maintain. Hon. Members should consider a stadium filled by children who will die as a result of advertising and of the role of the tobacco industry in maintaining advertising at the point of sale, where young people can see it.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech, but the trouble is that he is introducing an enormous amount of emotion. There is a complete lack of rigour in what he says. He talks about 70,000 children dying. Is he really suggesting that if we banned all cigarette advertising, there would be no smoking? That is absurd. As we all know, the evidence on whether advertising encourages any or significant numbers of people to take up smoking is terribly mixed. The hon. Gentleman must be rigorous. He must speak to the amendments and stop introducing emotional blackmail, which does not work.

Mr. McCartney: It is interesting that when it comes to life and death, the apologists for the industry say that we are being emotional. My God, why not be emotional about the House passing up this opportunity? The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) would not have made his point if someone close to him was involved. The amendments should not be supported and I call on hon. Members to withdraw all of them. That will give the Minister an opportunity, at some stage, to make a proper statement. We can then rigorously examine what the Government have proposed in their secret negotiations with the tobacco industry.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped not to interrupt the speech by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), but, in view of the remarks he has just made and the remarks that I should like to make, I felt it appropriate that I should speak now.
I have, of course, become aware of the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the earlier exchanges about the Minister's proposed statement. I have arranged that the Minister should make a statement at 2.30 pm on the developments in the voluntary agreement restricting tobacco advertising.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister and the House for their forbearance in letting me continue my speech until we got acceptance of the principle that we had been trying to establish from the outset. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if it got a bit hairy for you in the Chair on occasions. In the end, the Government may learn lessons from this and from last Friday's debacle. It is important to the concepts and principles of the House that hon. Members' rights are not abused, deliberately or not. I look forward to discussing the Minister's statement vigorously with him at an appropriate time today.

Sir David Mitchell: I recognise the strength of views for and against the Bill, and for and against the amendments. I also recognise the sincerity with which those views are held. I support the public purpose of reducing damage to health from excessive smoking. However, the promoter's purpose is to reduce tobacco consumption by banning advertising. I do not think that that purpose will be achieved at all.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in 1975, Norway banned all advertisements for tobacco. Tobacco consumption at that time was 2,254 g per head. By 1991, after a total ban for all those years, the amount of tobacco consumption in Norway had declined by 1 per cent. The United Kingdom did not ban advertising. It did something more effective: it required every advertisement to carry a warning.
I should like to tell the House of my personal experience. I used to think that the condemnation of smoking was overdone, and I used to smoke. However, the constant day in, day out message of "smoking damages your health", "smoking causes cancer", "smoking causes heart attacks" and "smoking kills" has had its intended effect and I, like so many others, now very rarely smoke.
In the UK, the consumption per capita of tobacco products is down by 36 per cent. during the period in which we have had advertisements which have to proclaim on 17.5 per cent. of their space that smoking damages one's health.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I was interested and a little puzzled by the figures that my hon. Friend cited from Norway, as my recollection is that the Smee report to the Department told us that the ban on advertising tobacco products in Norway in 1975 was followed by a 16 per cent. drop in consumption. Of course, other factors that may have contributed to that fall, but Smee was in no doubt whatever that the ban on advertising had made a significant contribution.
Is it not right that all our efforts should be working together and that we should not allow advertising to continue to offset the other good efforts that we are making?

Sir David Mitchell: I hear what my hon. Friend says,and I make two points. The official statistics of Norway for tobacco consumption from 1975 to 1991 show that consumption per capita, in grams, was 2,254 in 1975 and that by 1991 it had fallen to 2,224—a reduction of approximately 1 per cent. I have to say to my hon. Friend, therefore, that in that instance the total ban on advertising seems to have had little effect on the level of consumption of tobacco products.

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Sir David Mitchell: May I complete my response to my hon. Friend? In this country, we have not had a total ban on advertising, but we have imposed a ban in a form which requires some 17.5 per cent. of the advertising space to be devoted to a health warning. I was trying to tell the House that I, like so many others, have heeded that warning. The effect on the public is to create an awareness, which was never there before, of the fact that smoking damages one's health—that smoking is a major cause of cancer, heart attacks and death.
It seems totally counter-productive to the purpose of those who seek to improve the nation's health to remove all advertisements, which carry that important warning.

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Sir David Mitchell: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. There is an inwardness about much tobacco advertising which I did not even recognise until I began to look into it. Many of the advertisements do not on the face of it seem to have anything to do with tobacco smoking. That is because the advertisements are concerned with persuading people to change from one brand of tobacco to another.
For example, there is an advertisement of a man with a huge Mexican hat and it is due only to the colour of the hat that the advertisement has any impact on smoking. That is because that colour is associated with a particular brand of cigarette. I do not even know which brand of cigarettes that advertisement concerns. It clearly has no impact at all on trying to persuade people to smoke, but only on persuading them to change from one brand to another. However, right across the bottom of those advertisements in big, clear writing is the warning that smoking endangers one's health, that it kills and that it causes heart attacks, and so on.

Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend is saying that if we are to have advertising it is better to have health warnings accompanying the advertisements, I agree with him that far. In his study of the statistical evidence from other countries, has he looked to countries other than Norway such as, for example, Finland, Canada and New Zealand? Each of those countries has found that a ban on advertising was followed by a significant fall in tobacco consumption and by courresponding benefits to the health of those societies.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood you to rule earlier that the debate would be confined to matters that turn on the amendments before us, which deal with the structures used for advertising and whether they are viewable from outside the premises concerned. The amendments do not relate to advertising campaigns in foreign countries. I am looking at the clock and wondering whether those of us who have waited patiently to talk about the amendments will have the opportunity to do so, or whether we are to have a series of general discussions. I ask for the protection of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to that, and I take his point. The debate has been going rather wide, as I have said on many occasions in the past two or three hours. I hope that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) will bear that in mind.

Sir David Mitchell: I, too, had been waiting since the House began to sit this morning for an opportunity to


participate in the debate. I am addressing my remarks to the amendments. We are concerned with a form of advertising which may be visible outside or inside premises, and it seems relevant to consider the part of the advertisement which has to bear a health warning. In this country, per capita consumption in grams of tobacco has fallen by 36 per cent. at a time when in Norway it has fallen by only I per cent. What accounts for the difference? In Norway they have banned advertisements entirely whereas we have provided that there must be a health warning. That warning —I draw attention to amendments Nos. 10 and 9—must be clearly visible. I understand from the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister this morning—

Mr. Bennett: What statement?

Sir David Mitchell: The Minister's press release, of which I have obtained a copy.
I understand that the proportion of the advertisement devoted to a health warning is to be increased from 17.5 per cent. to 20 per cent. That is a further significant enhancement of the argument that I am advancing. We discover on inquiry that the proportion of the advertising that is devoted to health warnings throughout the country costs about £10 million a year. If the Bill is enacted, warnings about damage to health will be removed. That is entirely counter-productive to the attempt by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to improve the nation's health.

Mr. Barron: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's logic. I assume that he is talking about the 17.5 per cent. of the area of poster sites that is used for health warnings and not the 82.5 per cent. that is used to advertise cigarettes. Why cannot we do as so many other countries do and arrange for publicly funded organisations such as the Health Education Authority to take over poster sites? Then 100 per cent. of the site would be used to display a warning that people should not smoke cigarettes because of the damage that it does to public health.

Sir David Mitchell: I do not wish to detain the House as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am merely saying that I do not think that I am particularly different from many other people in that some years ago, when I used to smoke, I took the view that other people were getting unduly worked up about health considerations in relation to smoking. However, I have been impacted on, as it were, and I am sure that that is the experience of many of my constituents, by the warnings carried on advertisements. The health warnings constantly hammer it home that smoking damages our health. That has made me decide that smoking is a bad thing and I rarely smoke now.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who said in a memorandum to the Prime Minister:
Further there does seem to me to be an inconsistency in a policy which continues to defend tobacco advertising even in a restrictive form with a policy designed to reduce smoking further"?

2 pm

Sir David Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman wants to go the whole hog he should bring in a Bill to ban tobacco smoking, manufacture and production. He can do so by all means, but that is not before the House at present. We are discussing amendments—I have drawn attention to

amendments Nos. 9 and 10—which deal with the effect and availability of advertising that can be seen on shop premises and the like.
It seems entirely counter-productive to the purpose of improving the nation's health that £10 million-worth of advertising warning people against the dangers of smoking should be wiped out as a result of the Bill, were it to be passed.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: It may surprise you and, I hope, give you a little pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that I wish to confine my remarks to the specific wording of the amendments in the group, which must be feeling a little lonely. I can give the House the assurance that, in selecting amendment No. 34 as the one to which I appended my name, I did so entirely by myself, without influence from a commercial or any other sort of body.
In the remarks by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) I resented the cutting comment that some of us might have discussed the matter with the Whips. As a matter of principle, I would not think of doing that. I felt that that comment by the hon. Gentleman was the unkindest cut of all. My comments are independent and based on the fact that I want the Bill to be defeated—I make no bones about that. It diverts attention from the real task of dealing with public health. Attacking advertising creates various problems for all sorts of people and does not tackle the basic health issue.
When discussing the amendments I want us to consider those proposals that would facilitate the Bill's operation if they were positively and practically applied. I trust that, even at this late stage, the Bill's promoter—I know that today's debate must be disappointing for him—will look at the current proposals so that if such a Bill returns to the House on some other occasion, they can be included in it so that it gains wider support.
I particularly want to consider the structures, such as kiosks or partitioned areas within stores, that might be regarded as separate premises for the purpose of the Bill. That is an important issue, particularly for supermarkets. Surely, those who wish to see the purchasing of tobacco products to be separated from the generality of purchasing within supermarkets would welcome and want to encourage the establishment of separate areas. In my experience, most supermarkets place their tobacco products in a separate area. But most of them also place those products quite near the door so that people who come in for a packet of cigarettes do not have to walk past the bread, butter, bacon and everything else.
The Bill presents a danger that the separate areas that we would tend to welcome would also be visible from outside the store and might well fall within the specified 1 m from the door. We are considering purely practical problems. Amendment No. 34 should be seized with alacrity by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) as a good idea. If a company or a business were prepared to separate its tobacco sales from the rest of the business—I would welcome that—would not that be evidence of good will, which, perhaps, has not been greatly in evidence today?

Mr. Barron: The amendment as it stands probably would have been accepted if it stood on its own and was able to be debated properly. Some of the amendments which were tabled in Committee were also acceptable.
The one thing that I cannot square with the hon. Gentleman is that he says that he wants to amend the Bill


in one place, but he started his speech in relation to amendment No. 34 by saying that he did not want the Bill to succeed. Clearly, that is a matter for him.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the position. The grouping of the amendments, which I do not wish to discuss, was not a matter for me. The fact that amendment No. 34 was grouped with other amendments was not the choice of those of us who wished to support that amendment.
The hon. Gentleman should take seriously the point about the practicality of carrying out restrictive activities within the commercial field. I am sure he would wish tobacco-related activities to take place in a separate section of a shop and away from the main entrance.
Another difficulty with the Bill is that the hon. Gentleman does not wish the advertising to be seen from outside the shop. I am not aware of conditions in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but most supermarkets, convenience stores and small sweetshops and newsagents which have tobacco sections in my constituency do not switch off their lights at night. They leave all their lights on inside as a safety measure. That means that anyone walking past the windows can look inside.
I find it difficult to understand how it could be possible to ensure that the advertisements for cigarettes or other tobacco products could not be seen from outside, even in a sizable store, if the lights are left on.
That point leads me to another practical issue which was also raised earlier. Would the aim of the Bill be to black out the view of people outside by covering the shop's windows with advertisements? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the worst features of modern supermarkets and convenience stores is the plastering of their windows with large paper posters which get torn and defaced and which destroy the civic amenities of the area? The idea that one could cover the windows so that one cannot look in and see cigarette advertisements seems to be utterly impractical.
If we were to take amendment 34 as a basis from which to start, and we encouraged the establishment of separate areas for the sale of tobacco goods which we would accept could be seen from outside, it would probably be useful rather than damaging.
There is one further and final point on the purely practical issue which I am to trying to raise. Many supermarkets these days use a system of automatic doors, and one has only to walk along some of the roads close to the House to see supermarkets which have automatic doors. Those can swing open as people walk past them —one does not have to go through them—and the cigarette kiosk inside can be seen.
It would not be sensible that it should be an offence because a door opens to make it possible for the items to be seen. It is unlikely that many people will walk close to the door who are not on their way in to the supermarket. As they are about to go in, the doors open and the advertisement is seen when they are still outside.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will say, as he said earlier, that it is unlikely that these detailed points would be matters of issue, but I suggest that they would. There are people who take great joy in saying that they can see this, they can do that or this is a danger to them. They enjoy the contention that arises and the publicity that might arise from raising such matters.
At this late stage, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to indicate that he accepts that there are weaknesses in his Bill with regard to the carrying out of normal, ordinary commercial activities in supermarkets and other establishments where the sale of tobacco products is perhaps a relatively small part of those activities.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Clearly, most areas of law settle on these matters. Can we have black or white in what the hon. Gentleman is describing as a grey area? I was interested to hear him say that advertisements can be seen through doors and windows. The authorities would have to be satisfied about what constitutes an advertisement. Many of the kiosks to which the hon. Gentleman referred have illuminated signs that can be seen clearly from outside. They would have to go. Alternatively, if cigarette packets are stacked on the counter, there may be advertisements which are not illuminated and which cannot be seen clearly from outside. If a few kiosks will not reposition their advertisements, I am sorry.
In the end, we must interpret the Bill as it is meant. Advertising is important when selling tobacco products —it is important to the industry in terms of brands and so on. However, it is more important in terms of public health. In the end, public health must be the dominant factor and that is why the Bill is framed in such a way—to protect public health.

Mr. Griffiths: Indeed, we do not find ourselves greatly at odds on the matter. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that he wished that hon. Members had addressed themselves to the consumers, rather than to the interests of those who provide the premises or who might make a profit from sales made therein.
There is a clear distinction to be drawn between informing customers and others who enter a store, and simple advertising. The role of advertising is to increase sales or to increase interest in a particular brand of product. We can have a lengthy discussion about that in a different part of the Bill. What I am saying is that we need to ensure that normal, ordinary commercial information is made available to people. The amendments in this group are worthy of careful consideration because they offer encouragement to the owners of commercial premises to come forward with changes in their premises, which would facilitate developments in public health, and recognition of the dangers that tobacco use can cause.
It is not reasonable to suggest that all the amendments tabled today were simply tabled, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said—I objected when he said it—as "wrecking amendments"; they were not. They were tabled by hon. Members who may dislike the Bill, but they were chosen to try to improve it. That is a legitimate exercise at each stage of a Bill. Proposals at Second Reading and in Committee—

Mr. Miller: I distinctly heard—I am open to correction if I am wrong—the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) say on radio that the amendments were tabled to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: I was about to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North can speak for himself, but I think that we are all afraid that he might do so.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
The fact is that such terms are used loosely sometimes. The hon. Member for Makerfield used the word "wrecking" and I objected to it. It was accepted that the amendments could not be wrecking amendments because they would not be in order. Sometimes such terms are used loosely. At the start of my speech I said that I was opposed to the Bill but I tried to show that the amendments could not be categorised as wrecking amendments.

Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has not graced us with his presence for most of our deliberations, and perhaps I can take this opportunity to put him right. If he had been here he would have known that my short interventions on four or five amendments were helpful. In terms of the proceedings of the House I was trying to help the hon. Member for Rother Valley to improve the Bill. I made no secret of my opposition to the Bill and if at the end of the day the House or I have anything to do with wrecking it, I shall make no apology whatever for that.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend's comment is in accord with what I have suggested. Perhaps it is best not to examine closely remarks made outside the House. It is better to look at those made in the Chamber.
The amendments may well aim to change the Bill but the objectives of those who tabled them are just as legitimate as the aims of those who promote and support the Bill. It is just as right to seek to improve a Bill as to promote one. I think we must accept that the Bill will not reach the statute book.

Mr. Barron: It could.

Mr. Griffiths: That is a matter of opinion, but its proposals could be improved so that on another occasion a Bill with far less contentious material could be produced and would not face lengthy and inconclusive discussions such as those that we have had on this one.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that it is normally considered discourteous for an hon. Member to introduce a group of amendments and then depart from the House and appear to take no further part in the debate? Does not that suggest that rather than tabling amendments in an attempt to improve the Bill, the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) appears to have acted in a spirit of trying to damage the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In recent years I have noticed that many courtesies of the House are beginning to fall by the wayside. That is regrettable and I hope that my words will encourage hon. Members in future to abide by the courtesies of the House.

Mr. Couchman: I am pleased at this late stage in our discussions to make a short speech because it allows me to declare that, contrary to scurrilous sedentary comments from the Opposition Front Bench, I have absolutely no interest in the tobacco industry.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not rising to the bait but it is important to get the matter clear. I and others have somewhat jaundiced views of the hon. Member's involvement in these matters

because he is a paid adviser to the pharmaceutical industry which makes hundreds of millions of pounds a year selling products—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Couchman: That is a most disgraceful comment and I demand that the hon. Gentleman withdraw it straight away.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. McCartney: Just look in the Register of Members' Interests. The hon. Gentleman is registered as an adviser to a pharmaceutical company—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That should be sufficient.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the pharmaceutical industry does not make cigarettes —surprise, surprise.
I propose to speak only to the amendments, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). In a brief intervention I said that my small family company runs seven London pubs. Cigarettes are sold from vending machines in those pubs, as they are in pubs and clubs throughout the country. It will be a matter of considerable concern to people who, like me, run public houses and sell cigarettes through such machines that the Bill mentions premises that are used wholly or mainly for the purpose of selling cigarettes and gives some exemptions in relation to them.
Public houses and clubs do not wholly or mainly sell tobacco products; they are a minor part of the product that we sell. They make little contribution to profit and are not much loved by any publican. But none the less there is a demand for those products and we sell them, usually through vending machines to avoid pilferage either by staff or customers.
My problem is whether advertisements for particular brands on those vending machines may or may not be seen outside the premises and thus contravene the Bill, were it to become an Act. That would leave us vulnerable and in jeopardy of draconian and substantial penalties. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), I am extremely concerned that the Bill has been sloppily drafted. The Bill relies on interpretations on which we should not rely, for I can give many instances where bureaucrats seek to interpret something in an absolute way when the spirit of the legislation may be in a different direction.
I am very much in favour of the group of amendments being passed. I hope that the House will accept them as amendments to what is a bad Bill. I have no love whatever for the tobacco industry. It is 15 years since I smoked a cigarette, and I have a wife who had a very nasty brush with cancer through smoking. So I have no time whatever for the tobacco industry. I am worried about the sort of precedent that the Bill, were it to become law, would set for the Stalinists who introduced it.

Sir Peter Emery: Having sat here for nearly five hours, it is quite interesting that I am the first Conservative Member to be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak in favour of the Bill. A considerable number of Conservative Members are in favour of it, illustrated, perhaps, by the 150 members of the all-party group on asthma, all of whom are in favour of the Bill.
I now refer to the basic health matters within the amendment, which are of considerable concern. Nobody other than those who were listening to the lobby of cigarette manufacturers does not accept that advertising has some effect in increasing the use of cigarettes, whether the advertising is outside or inside, as the amendment refers to, and I wish to stay in order. I suggest to the House that, where young children can see retail advertising, positive academic considerations and studies have shown that advertisers are increasingly moving to target directly young women and young people to encourage them to begin smoking. That cannot be right. It cannot be right for any hon. Member, whatever he or she believes, that any aspect of advertising should encourage young people to begin smoking.
I refer specifically to the approach of Professor Dame Margaret Turner-Warwick, ex-president of the Royal College of Physicians. She drew my attention to the report by professors Pierce, Lee and Gilpin, in which they studied the matter, not just for a short while but positively since 1944, as I suggested, with surveys in 1970, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1987 AND 1988. Those reports found that there was not necessarily a positive increase in smoking among young men aged 18 to 20. I give both sides of the report, to be absolutely fair. As to advertising, including that on retail premises, the reports made the situation absolutely clear. Dame Margaret stated:
The study concludes that the increased marketing and promotional activities by tobacco companies were associated with a major increase in the uptake of smoking by females younger than the legal age for purchasing cigarettes.
If that is the conclusion of a study that has been under way for 20 years, surely the House should pay attention to it.
I do not claim that there are no other major factors—of course there are. But if advertising is one factor and the House can do something, it should take a positive step. That is why I support the Bill.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend can make another speech when I sit down.
The National Asthma Campaign—and I declare an interest as its chairman—has 198 branches, and every member of them wants the Bill to progress. The House has not done itself a great service. We should consider not the interests of tobacco manufacturers but the need to reduce the incidence of lung cancer—which in many areas is becoming a greater killer than breast cancer. Smoking is the major factor, and advertising on premises and outside them must have an effect. I hope that the amendments will be defeated and that we can get on with passing the Bill.

Mr. John Carlisle: I have great respect for my right hon. Friend's views, which he expressed eloquently in Committee—he holds a distinguished post with the National Asthma Campaign. However, my right hon.

Friend and other opponents of the amendments failed to address the type of advertising that influences young people to smoke.
My right hon. Friend read letters from senior members of the medical profession and quoted surveys undertaken over the past 20 or 30 years—but at no point has my right hon. Friend or the Bill's supporters indicated the sort of advertising that might attract young people to smoking —and obviously that is important.
It has been said before, and it will be said again, that many tobacco advertisements are totally misleading to non-smokers. They include hon. Members who are in some cases aged and respected members of society, having the degree of intellect that I suppose is necessary to enter the House—although I sometimes wonder when I look at some hon. Members opposite. If we cannot understand tobacco advertising, how are we—

Mr. Austin-Walker: rose—

Mr. Barron: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I would love to give way, but I am anxious that the House gets through as many amendments as possible—and time is short. However, I will give way to the hon. Member for Rother Valley.

Mr. Barron: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's remark that he was anxious to get through the amendments, because he wrote to me on 15 May that he hoped that my Bill would be consigned to the legislative dustbin. Does an hon. Member need to be particularly articulate to comment in such a way on legislation that concerns public health and the well-being of our young people?

Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps I made that remark because I know the type of person that the hon. Gentleman is, and I thought that he might understand that kind of language, whereas he would not have appreciated something more sophisticated.
This debate has been an interesting exercise. The hon. Gentleman presented his Bill with some eloquence but did not appeal to those of us whose fundamental concern is his unique attempt—and I am glad that at twenty-eight minutes past one o'clock one can say this—to stop 16 million people who take part in a legitimate pastime choosing for themselves whether they smoke one brand or another, or whether to smoke at all. The hon. Member for Rother Valley was trying to impose the nanny state upon the British nation—those who smoke and those who do not —in his attempt to ban advertising of a legitimate product.
To imply, as certain of my hon. Friends have done, that children will take up smoking because of advertisements that they see and that by banning them, children will be prevented from smoking, is absolute nonsense.
Under the voluntary agreement—we are about to hear about a new agreement—the tobacco companies, in agreement with the Department of Health, specifically state that their advertisements should not be pitched at children. That does not happen and—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL

Order read for further consideration (not amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

To be further considered upon Friday 15 July.

SOCIAL SECURITY REGULATIONS (CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 1 July.

NATIONAL PARKS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will you please confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the objection came from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 May.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Monday 23rd May, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No.14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall—

(1) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made;

(2) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Sir John Cope relating to the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1994 not later than one and a half hours after it has been made; and

(3) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary MacGregor relating to the draft Railways

Pension Scheme Order 1994 and the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Conway.]

Points of Order

Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what has happened to the Tobacco Advertising Bill, is there any way in which the House can protect the interests of hon. Members who come near the top of the list of those successful in the ballot to introduce private Members' Bills? It was clear from day two that the Government offered me a Bill through their Whips' Office which would get through the House. Today my Bill has been subjected to a procedural mugging by the use of contemptible tactics. Is it not a contempt of the House and disgraceful that the Minister should make a statement now instead of doing so in the proper parliamentary way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The House has already considered the first part of the hon. Member's point of order. I will not respond directly to his question about contempt, but I must tell the House that I strongly deprecate what has taken place and, in particular, the fact that a press release was issued purporting to report what a Minister had said in the House before the relevant statement was made.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I place on record on behalf of my constituents my strong objection to the fact that the National Parks Bill was objected to by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, and the hon. Gentleman knows that full well.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it was clear to you whether the Government Whip knew precisely what he was doing when he objected to Government new clause 2 to the Energy Conservation Bill? I always understood that Government Whips were paid to do the Government's business, but I had hoped that we might make enough progress on the Bill to pass a Government new clause, which had already been debated for two hours, without a Division. I would have let it through on the nod just a few moments ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Tobacco Advertising (Voluntary Code)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): With permission, I should like to make a statement on a new voluntary agreement controlling tobacco advertising. Before doing so, however, I should like to apologise to the House for the fact that the text of the remarks that I hoped to make in the earlier debate, but did not make, were prematurely released in the Vote Office.
I am pleased to announce that the United Kingdom health Departments and the tobacco industry have concluded negotiations on the main elements of a new voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion. A number of significant new measures to control tobacco advertising will be introduced that will have a wide-ranging impact, in particular on the exposure of young people to advertisements and on the effectiveness of health warnings. I believe that they provide reassurance as to the value of the system of voluntary controls on tobacco advertising in delivering an effective level of health protection.
The main additions to the existing agreement agreed between United Kingdom Health Ministers and the tobacco industry will be: the removal of all permanent shop-front advertising for all tobacco products by the end of 1996; a reduction in the expenditure allowed on cigarette poster advertising by 40 per cent., which will give a new limit for cigarette poster advertising spend of 30 per cent. of the 1980 expenditure level, allowing for inflation; the removal of all small poster advertising for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, including bus stop advertising, although 48-sheet posters and above will still be allowed; the removal of all mobile advertising for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, including advertisements on buses and taxis; the removal of all poster advertising for all tobacco products from within a 200 m radius of school entrances; a significant increase in the size and impact of health warnings on cigarette and hand-rolling tobacco advertisements, including increasing the space devoted to the health warning to 20 per cent. of the total area of the advertisement, increasing the size of the lettering of the health warning by approximately 80 per cent. in posters and 50 per cent. in press advertisements and rotating the presentation of health warnings between black lettering on a white background and white lettering on a black background to increase impact; the introduction of health warnings on cigar and pipe tobacco advertisements for the first time, covering 10 per cent. of the total area; a requirement for all point-of-sale advertising material for cigarettes, hand-rolling tobacco, cigars and pipe tobacco to carry health warnings, not just larger items of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco advertising; the introduction of health warnings on certain items of promotional material for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, including, for example, beer mats and ash trays; controls on the content of cigarette advertisements, currently being updated by the Advertising Standards Authority, should prevent the use of humour in cigarette advertisements that would be likely to have a particular appeal to the young; the introduction of a new code of practice to help to ensure that free samples of cigarettes are not available to under-18s; a ban on advertising tobacco products on computer games and other

computer software; and provision for increased expenditure by the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship on monitoring compliance with the new agreement.
The new agreement, which will run for five years, will be published and come into force shortly. It will need to be approved under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.

Mr. Ian McCartney: This statement is about four hours late. It is a Pontius Pilate statement. We now know the extent of the tobacco influence on the Department of Health.
This statement will do nothing to reduce the 300 deaths a day that are caused by the consumption of tobacco products. It is a repudiation of Professor Smee's direct advice to the Government and of the Government's "Health of the Nation" targets, which now will not be reached because of the continuation of the insidious advertising of tobacco products. The Minister did not mention how many lives would be saved or the effects of the targets on the consumption of tobacco products.
The Minister mentioned
a reduction in the expenditure allowed on cigarette poster advertising by 40 per cent.
and
a new limit…of 30 per cent. of the 1980 expenditure level, allowing for inflation.
What does that mean? How much in real terms will the tobacco industry be allowed to continue to spend, year on year, to continue the consumption of its product by children to replace the 300 people a day whom it kills?
Poster advertisements are to be removed from within 200 m of school entrances—what a joke. Does that mean that children will have to go to school with their eyes closed and not look at posters from the time they leave their houses until they get to school? If the Minister is serious about this matter, why not take into account school premises rather than school entrances alone? Will the industry still be able to advertise on sites opposite school playing fields and on other premises owned by education authorities?
The Minister's statement is confirmation of the fact that the Government are not serious about tackling the industry which is targeting children specifically but not only on their way to and from school; every time children leave their homes, they are confronted by tobacco advertisements whose specific purpose is to encourage children to start smoking and then to continue doing so.
The space devoted to health warnings is to be increased to 20 per cent. of the total area covered by an advertisement. However, a few weeks ago the Government were saying that they were would be tough on the industry and would sort it out. After great negotiations—hard hours spent by the Minister for Health at his Department—there is to be a 2.5 per cent. concession. Why is there not to be 80 per cent. warning and 20 per cent. advertising? Is it something to do with the £200,000 that the Conservatives got from this country's biggest manufacturer of tobacco products in the weeks leading up to the previous general election? Is this the pay-off for the tobacco industry?
As for the content of advertising, will the Minister give a commitment that the Advertising Standards Authority will introduce the new controls only after consultation with the medical profession and other interested parties? So far, the ASA has failed disgracefully adequately to police the agreement. The fact that it has done its job inadequately


has allowed Regal and Silk Cut to produce advertisements deliberately designed to interest children in smoking and to ensure that they maintain the habit.
The Minister also announced a ban on the advertising of tobacco products in computer games. I assume that the reason for the ban is that the Government now accept in principle the concept that the advertising of tobacco products to children is harmful and that it is also harmful to the public in general. Therefore, why not ban completely the use of any other products for tobacco advertising? The Government cannot have it both ways. If they accept in principle the notion that a ban is necessary because of the harmful nature of a product, the ban should be extended. The simplest way to proceed would be to allow the House time next week to pass the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).

Mr. Sackville: Let me first deal with the contemptible allegation that the Government have been influenced by the tobacco industry. Does the hon. Gentleman think that if such influence existed we would have increased the price of tobacco products in every successive Budget to a greater extent than almost every other European country? In this country a packet of 20 cigarettes of the most popular brand costs about £2.50 whereas in some other European countries it costs between 40p and 50p. Does he think that our increases are the actions of a Government who have been influenced by the tobacco industry?
The hon. Gentleman tries to rubbish the voluntary agreement which we are strengthening. I remind him that, since the agreement has been in effect, the number of people smoking in this country has declined progressively. In many other countries where there has been a ban there have often been smaller decreases in the numbers smoking. Indeed, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said in the debate on the Trade Marks Bill:
In other countries, cigarette advertising is banned. In Hungary, there is no advertising of cigarettes, but there has been an enormous growth in the consumption of cigarettes."—[Official Report, 18 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 671.]

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before I call hon. Members, I must point out that I am looking for short questions and short answers.

Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend the Minister enumerated the practices that would not be allowed in future. Will he enumerate the forms of advertising that will still be permitted? Is it not absolutely clear that the continuation of that advertising will lead to a deterioration in health?

Mr. Sackville: I have said that there will be a limited amount of poster advertising, but I have pointed out that under the new limit the spend will be only 30 per cent. of the equivalent spend in 1980. That is a considerable reduction in spending. There will continue to be certain promotional items inside shops, for example. Many of the important parts of the advertising programme of the tobacco industry will no longer happen; they will be reduced progressively. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that that is a major step in the right direction.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am delighted that the Minister has at long last made a statement to the House. He was forced to do so because he tried to slip the statement in during a debate on amendments to the Tobacco

Advertising Bill. How can he think that the voluntary agreement has worked? He does not appear to have commissioned any research into the matter. Will he now commission research into the voluntary agreement and then tell the House what that research is? Will he ask the tobacco industry to open the monitoring committee to the public so that they may be aware of what is happening?
Why is there nothing in the statement about inserts in comics or about advertising in magazines and newspapers? Will there be no voluntary agreement on that? Does not the Minister now see that a voluntary agreement does not work and that, therefore, the Tobacco Advertising Bill should have gone forward?

Mr. Sackville: I remind the hon. Lady that we take the view that a voluntary agreement is the way forward. There is no absolute proof of the effects of advertising, whether in terms of overall consumption or in terms of switching brands. There are no absolutes in this: we cannot be certain. All we know is that we shall continue to follow a programme of removing advertising from children as much as possible and that we shall ensure that anything that we do has that theme.

Mr. Roger Sims: The Department of Health accepts that smoking is harmful per se and seeks in "The Health of the Nation" to reduce its incidence. Does it accept that advertising influences consumption? If advertising does not influence consumption, what is the point of trying to reduce advertising? If it does influence consumption, why negotiate to allow advertising to continue at all? Why not ban it altogether?

Mr. Sackville: That is the key question which surrounds the whole debate. We take the view that to seek to ban the advertising of a substance that is itself legal is wrong. We seek, therefore, to take action that is in proportion to the available evidence of the impact of advertising. That is what controls our entire policy.

Mr. Kevin Barron: This is the 11 th time that the voluntary agreement has been renegotiated. On each occasion, the agreement has restricted advertising. The reason, quite simply, is that advertising increases not only brand share but consumption.
The Minister says that poster sites must be outside a 200 m radius of school entrances. Under the existing voluntary agreement there has supposedly been a restriction on posters that are visible from schools for some time. Yet the Minister knows fine well that that restriction has been breached. I have here photographic evidence, compiled by a doctor in London, which shows that the restriction has been breached in the case of more than two thirds of the schools included in the survey. Will the Minister now tell us what policing and monitoring there will be of the voluntary agreement, which has been broken time and again, while our children are being induced to take up this habit, which prematurely kills many hundreds of people each day?

Mr. Sackville: I have made it clear that we are putting extra resources into the monitoring of the agreement. We are serious about the agreement. My right hon. Friend, who negotiated it, and the Department of Health will be making quite certain that the industry will stick to what it has agreed to. That cannot always be said of statutory bans. Once a statutory ban is introduced, companies go to great


lengths to try to get round the letter of the law. Companies will stay within the spirit of the law and, if not, they know the consequences.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for apologising to the House. I am certain that the House accepts his apology.
First, does my hon. Friend accept his own figures that show that lung cancer, especially among women, is on the increase? Secondly, does he accept that that has been caused mainly by smoking? If that is the case, why have we an agreement that is to last for five years? Surely, if it is to be of any use at all, it should be for a much shorter period so that we can get on with trying to stop advertising altogether.

Mr. Sackville: We have the freedom to review the agreement at any time. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is appalling that more young women are smoking and that there seems to be a higher incidence of lung cancer among young women. We all agree that we want to reduce smoking. What we are about is deciding how to do that, and we disagree with my right hon. Friend on that point.
The Government believe strongly that the voluntary agreement has been a success and that it will continue. It is only part of a comprehensive package, which includes, as I said earlier, action on price by having almost the most expensive cigarettes in Europe and a large, extra budget for an advertising campaign to demonstrate the dangers of smoking. It is a part of a package. My right hon. Friend must not—I hope that he does not—go down the path of thinking that advertising is the only aspect that affects matters. It is a totem around which many people dance; it is not the only part of our programme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is becoming obvious to me that the appeal that I made a few moments ago for short questions and short answers has fallen on deaf ears. If that continues to be the case, many hon. Members who wish to speak will not be successful.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that, in the Select Committee on National Heritage two or three weeks ago, the tobacco companies admitted that they were spending £8 million on television sponsorship of snooker—by Benson and Hedges—of horse racing, of rugby league and of other sporting programmes on which they are advertising despite all the bans? The Minister has mentioned nothing about any restraints on that. The reason why the Government have given the Minister those few tokens to announce is to enable them to spend cash in future.

Mr. Sackville: That is a matter for my ministerial colleagues in the Department of National Heritage. The hon. Gentleman knows about the question of sports promotion. To describe what I have said today as "tokens" when one considers the enormous reductions in spending that are implied by them is very wide of the mark.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the incidence of smoking ranges from 6 per cent. among doctors to about 75 per cent. among mothers on income support and that children with parents who smoke are two and a half times more likely to smoke? Does

he agree that, as well as the discussions about the voluntary agreement and the Bill, the most important thing is to act on what people know and on what influences them?

Mr. Sackville: I absolutely agree with the research about which my hon. Friend speaks that is related to the influence of parents. The evidence that there is a very much higher likelihood of children whose parents smoke taking up smoking themselves is overwhelming.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not the real reason why the Government have not been prepared to ban tobacco advertising to be found in the letter from Imperial Tobacco Ltd. of 27 January 1992, which states clearly that the Government did a deal with Imperial Tobacco not to ban advertising during this Parliament? That is why we cannot pass the legislation and that is why we have a voluntary agreement, which we all know will not work. Is not it the snidy little deals done in smoke-filled back rooms that has led to the Government's squirming on this occasion?

Mr. Sackville: The Government have no wish to ban tobacco advertising. We mean to go on ensuring that we have a comprehensive package, including restrictions on advertising, to reduce the incidence of smoking among the population as a whole.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The Minister has prescribed very harsh terms in his statement. May I ask a question on one term? If there is to be a health warning on promotional material such as beer mats, how far does he intend to go down that route?

Mr. Sackville: That is a matter of the definition of promotional material. It may become a factor between the two sides. That is precisely why a voluntary ban can be much more effective than a ban that seeks to define exactly the definitions. The tobacco industry must remain within the spirit of the definition. We all know what we regard as promotional material. If the industry goes outside that common-sense definition, it will know the consequences.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge that, despite the introduction of the voluntary code, the tobacco industry will be spending far more money on advertising than the money that health promotion units will have to spend on preventing smoking, especially among young children? Until the Government are prepared to accept the contents of the Tobacco Advertising Bill or a similar Bill, will the Minister ensure that health promotion units receive comparable sums?

Mr. Sackville: If we think that further resources are needed for promotional campaigns, we shall make those resources available. As was said earlier, with 20 per cent. of the space on advertising posters containing health warnings, we shall get a huge amount of free anti-smoking material, to which the public are subject. That is something that must not be overlooked.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister tell the House how many young people's lives he expects to save through the action which he has announced today? What of the other vulnerable young people? Are their lives to be consigned to the dustbin like the Bill today?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no absolute research on the different motivations of people taking up smoking. We can try to continue to provide a


package of measures to persuade people not to take up smoking. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would ban all tobacco products, that is another matter.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: First, may I press the Minister to apologise to the House, rather than to blame the Vote Office, for dodging making a proper statement? Secondly, will he ask the question put by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea): how many lives does he expect to be saved? Will he confirm that there will be a cut in the tobacco industry's donation to the Tory party as a result of the voluntary agreement?

Mr. Sackville: I apologised unreservedly. I would not blame the Vote Office, my officials or any officials of the House for anything that happened. I would be happy to repeat my apology. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I made it.
Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that a Government who have progressively increased the tax on the products of a company are likely to be seeking donations from that company?

Mr. Richard Alexander: My hon. Friend has announced an increase in the amount of space on an advertisement that must be devoted to the health warning. Does it follow that the Government feel that the health warning has been effective in reducing tobacco consumption? If they do, do they agree that we should not ban all tobacco advertising?

Mr. Sackville: We agree that we should not ban all tobacco advertising. We seek to restrict it, and we seek to strengthen the effect of the warnings that it contains. The lettering has been increased to make warnings more visible, which was precisely what we were advised to do by ASH. That is what we are delivering.

Ms Janet Anderson: The press release states that the Government will introduce
a new code of practice to help ensure that free samples of cigarettes are not available to under 18s".
It is my understanding that that code of practice already exists in the current voluntary agreement. Is the fact that the Minister feels bound to introduce a new code of practice to ensure that restriction evidence that the existing one is not working? If so, is it not self-evident that the voluntary agreement does not work?

Mr. Sackville: Obviously there are parts of the current agreement that are unsatisfactory or need improvement, which is why we are announcing improvements.

Mr. Alan Howarth: If we are to proceed by way of a voluntary agreement rather than by a ban on advertising, which I greatly regret, the new voluntary agreement is a significant improvement on its predecessor. To that extent, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. Friends on what they have achieved in the negotiations. But if the Department of Health is serious about its responsibility—to promote the health of the nation—it will concentrate on it singlemindedly and judge policies by their results. He can very well justify a ban on the advertising of tobacco products, which would reduce consumption, while retaining the legality of the sale of the tobacco products. We do not want to criminalise the tobacco trade as that would lead to effects comparable to those of prohibition in

the United States of America. It would cause a new set of evils. My hon. Friend need have no difficulty in making that distinction.

Mr. Sackville: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, given his views on the subject and the Bill, which I know. I take what he says very seriously.

Mr. Michael Clapham: In his press release the Minister refers to
the removal of all small poster advertising for cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco".
Does that cover cigar and pipe tobacco? Does it cover the advertising of a promotion or brand name?

Mr. Sackville: As the hon. Gentleman may know, negotiations are currently being held with the European Community about the bearing of warnings on single cigar packaging. That matter has to be negotiated, but all such matters are being progressively tightened up.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The House knows my retail experience and interest in the subject. Does my hon. Friend agree that advertising is not a factor in the consumption of tobacco products? If that were so, the consumption of a hand-rolling tobacco called Drum would not be as high as it is—it has the third largest share of the market in this country when it is not legally sold here—but would be outstripped by Amber Leaf and Rolled Gold. Those tobaccos are made in this country by tobacco companies in this country; they can advertise and have special offers in this country.

Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend probably has more expertise on the likely effect of advertising than anyone else in the Chamber, and I thank him for his comments.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies is outside the agreement, so will be subject to other negotiations? I think that he will share my concern that Opposition Members might find it difficult were sponsorship to be withdrawn from many such events. They would not be able to enjoy those events that they now attend freely and watch on television. Those events allow them to enjoy, not the hospitality, but the generosity of tobacco companies.

Mr. Sackville: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be heard by the Department for National Heritage.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Minister answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) about computer games? Will he confirm that there is no evidence to show a distinction between the effects on young people of advertising in computer games and the effects on them of advertising in other media to which they are introduced, such as inserts in comics?

Mr. Sackville: Clearly we must ensure that advertising and promotion is not allowed in relation to any items that are aimed specifically at young people. That provision must become part of the agreement.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: No doubt the Minister is aware of the memorandum from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Prime Minister last November in which he said that, if the Government wanted to be seen to be serious about wishing to reduce the


prevalence of smoking and to improve health, they would introduce an outright ban on tobacco advertising. May we take it from his statement today that the Government do not wish to be seen to be serious about tackling the problem?

Mr. Sackville: The Government are extremely serious about tackling the problem in a number of ways. The idea that an advertising ban is the only thing which must be addressed to try to reduce the incidence of smoking is a complete myth.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the health warning would be very much more effective if the size of the lettering was increased by more than a mere 80 per cent.? The lettering is so small at the moment that it is often hardly legible. If the space for the warning is to be increased to 20 per cent. of the poster, will not that waste of lot of space? Would not it be better to increase the size of the lettering by more than 80 per cent.?

Mr. Sackville: We have arrived at the answer of a minimum of 6 in because we believe that that is generally readable at some 210 ft. We regard that as a fair distance.

Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

Mr. Toby Jessel: Any hon. Member initiating a new debate this weekend will wish to join in the tributes to the late right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, following his sudden death yesterday, and I certainly make no apology for doing so. I came to know him in 1982 on a 10-day Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to India, and I grew to like respect and him immensely. He will be greatly missed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, which must be done in the context of the current defence cost study.
Kneller Hall is one of the glories of our country. It trains British Army bands which are the envy of the entire world. They have a high standard of excellence. They lift the spirits of the nation. Who does not feel uplifted by the sight and sound of a British Army band on one of our royal or state occasions? The bands are without doubt one of our finest traditions. As part of the traditional British scene, they help to attract visitors whose spending generates employment and income and yields tax to the Government. The amount of that yield cannot be exactly measured, but it undoubtedly exists. Allowance should be made for it, and some such allowance should be offset against the cost of bands.
The immensely high standard of British Army bands is linked inextricably with the famous name of Kneller Hall, the Royal Military School of Music at Whitton, which is in the Twickenham constituency. It trains Army bandmasters and instrumentalists to a level of precision, strength, control and musicianship, which in military music has never been surpassed.
It is an efficient training. It is tried and proven, its quality and fame distilled from vast experience and woven into an effective system. Kneller Hall is also enormously popular—some 25,000 visitors pay to come annually to its celebrated outdoor summer concerts. The bandmasters and pupils benefit from the stimulus of an audience, 80 per cent. of whom are said to come from within 10 miles.
Within Twickenham and Whitton, Kneller Hall is a highly prized asset. Many of the audiences come from within my constituency, and many come from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), since Kneller Hall is right on his boundary. I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Many also come from the constituency of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). He has always been most supportive of Kneller Hall. I remind the House that, in 1986, he seconded my early-day motion in response to the proposal from the then Secretary of State for Defence to close Kneller Hall. As it was a long motion, I shall read just part of it:
That this House pays tribute to the high standards of excellence of the bands of the Army trained at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, the Royal Marines trained at Deal"—
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in his place—


"the Royal Air Force trained at Uxbridge, all of which add splendour to Royal and State occasions…takes note of the…Report of the Public Accounts Committee which
expresses grave disquiet that the Ministry of Defence should have decided on a joint Defence School of Music which would disrupt the training of service musicians and entail expenditure of £10 million before carrying out a full investment appraisal…and hopes that band training will long continue to flourish at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, at Deal and at Uxbridge respectively.
That early-day motion was signed by 163 Conservative Members, of whom 95 are still here, including 14 Ministers and Whips in the present Government. They included not only my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, who is now Minister of State for the Armed Forces and will reply to the debate—at that time, he had the freedom of the Back Benches—but his parliamentary secretary Viscount Cranborne and my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who is sitting on the Front Bench as the defence Whip, and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), whom I am glad to see in his place as he is a distinguished wind musician as well as a former Defence Minister.
Outside the Government and these Benches, may I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that two of your colleagues in the Chair, my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), also signed the same early-day motion? At that time they, too, had the freedom of the Back Benches.
In the debate on the Army on 4 May, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
Support areas make a vital contribution to the front line.
Britain has one of the world's best armies. Its courage, skill, professionalism and self-control are legendary. That has been proven time and time again under fire, as in the Falklands, the Gulf, Northern Ireland and Bosnia. My hon. Friend also said:
The UK contribution to current UN operations in former Yugoslavia is second to none in terms of its professionalism, efficiency and effectiveness."—[Official Report, 4 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 727–38.]
I fully endorse those words.
As a naval man—I served for six years in the Royal Navy—I know of the superb military qualities of the British Army which are hugely respected at home and abroad. Those qualities flow from the motive of regimental loyalty. Regimental loyalty is a powerful motivator. Just as in the Royal Navy a man will not want to let his shipmates down, so in the army a man will not want to let down his mates in his regiment. Regimental loyalty is territorially based. It is intense. It is purposely fostered. Without doubt, it is the mainspring of what makes the British Army tick.
Loyalty to Crown and country is strongly buttressed by loyalty to colonel-in-chief, to badge and to band. If the bands are weakened, so are our defences. If that motivation is undermined, so are the high standards of professionalism, as shown in Bosnia. My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to that in his speech on 4 May.
Last time round in 1983, it took me nine meetings with different Ministers; it took me raising the subject 17 times in the House; it took the early-day motion signed by 163 hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House; it took a petition signed by 16,000 people; and it took asking the Public Accounts Committee to report on the finances of the proposal to close Kneller Hall made by the then Secretary of State for Defence in his 1983 White Paper.
In its first conclusion the Select Committee on Public Accounts said:

We are gravely disquieted that the Ministry of Defence should have decided
to close Kneller Hall
before carrying out a full investment appraisal. We were therefore glad to receive the Ministry of Defence's undertaking that, in future, such appraisals would be carried out wherever a financial investment was contemplated and the results would be reported to Ministers before a decision was made.
In the end we got the Government to reverse their decision to close Kneller Hall. That decision was taken in March 1987. I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that while I am not asking to go through all that palaver again, I am absolutely ready to do so if needs must—and to double it. He can save himself and the Secretary of State a very great deal of trouble by doing the right thing and announcing in July that they will keep Kneller Hall open.
Incidentally I remind the Secretary of State, who has promised to read the report of this debate, that his appointment as a member of the Cabinet of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was approved by Her Majesty the Queen while she was at Kneller Hall in November 1990. The list of names was submitted to the Queen by telephone. She had decided not to stay in Buckingham Palace that afternoon but to carry on with her visit to mark the completion of the restoration of Kneller Hall following the Government's decision in 1987 to reprieve the Royal Military School of Music from closure. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to remind me of the cost of that restoration which was carried out in 1987–90.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government would never countenance any suggestion, as has sometimes been put about, that army bandsmen should be trained at civilian music colleges such as the Royal Academy of Music, the Royal College of Music and the Guildhall School of Music. A moment's thought would show that that would never work.
As a form of higher education those fine colleges train gifted young people, mainly those who are 18–plus and have reached grade 9 or above as singers or composers, or for solo work, for chamber music or for orchestras. I am second to none in my admiration of our symphony orchestras, but those colleges cannot train military musicians. They cannot train people to march as they play and to stay exactly in line as they march with military precision out of doors and in all weathers. We would still need a place to train military bands.
Can the Minister imagine the Halle orchestra performing at the trooping of the colour, at which I have no doubt he will be present next month on Horse Guards parade? Can the academic colleges of music train music bandmasters, army band conductors, and army band leaders? Can they handle security measures and the ring fencing of their colleges that the training of army personnel would have to entail? Have those colleges, which are already oversubscribed, been asked whether they could accept such conditions?
Without doubt we need to retain a military school of music whether on its own or merged with the training of Royal Marine bands which would, of course, be warmly welcomed at Twickenham if, unfortunately, they were not able to stay at Deal.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that if there were to be combined school of music his bandsmen would also be welcome at Deal?

Mr. Jessel: I am sure that they would be welcome, but they would not be welcome to leave Twickenham, and I


shall give my hon. Friend, the House and the Minister eight reasons why the training of the bandsmen should stay at Twickenham.
First, Kneller Hall is a world-famous institution. Secondly, a large sum has been spent on it as recently as 1987–90, following the decision in March 1987 to reprieve Kneller Hall. Thirdly, it remains easily the largest of the three, so that any other solution would be the tail wagging the dog. Fourthly, as it is only half an hour from central London, the specialist music tuition can be given by top instrumentalists from London orchestras, who would not be so ready to make journeys of two, three or four hours to the coast, whether in Devon, Hampshire or Kent. Fifthly, it has a good bandstand. Sixthly, it draws large audiences. That is part of the training. They also bring in some money. Seventhly, due to past reductions in bands, it has the capacity to take in the training of the Royal Marines, Royal Air Force bands, or both, without much additional expenditure on modernisation. Eighthly, it could not be sold for much. My hon. Friend the Minister should regard any figures that he has given on that not merely with caution but with the deepest scepticism.
As we are now halfway through the debate, as I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as I want to leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend the Minister, I shall not enlarge on that eighth point now, but will write to my hon. Friend.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will able to declare today that in no way will he ever put at risk the superb standards of that internationally famous institution which is Kneller Hall.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am extremely grateful that I have the opportunity to speak in the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). I commend his speech to the House.
I could not add more to enlighten the House on how important Kneller Hall is to the people of London and the nation. I merely want to say that Kneller Hall it is a very important attribute to the welfare and cultural aspects of my constituents. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Brentford, Isleworth and Hounslow are exposed to the rigours of environmental pollution, motorway traffic and Heathrow airport. The people of Brentford and Isleworth, and particularly the people of Hounslow, do not have outdoor facilities near their homes, other than Kneller Hall. In the summer, some 5,000 people go there to enjoy the excellent music provided by the Royal Military School.
Kneller Hall has been a national installation. It has provided the people of Brentford and Isleworth with the only available easily accessible source of music, including military music, in the past several decades. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham why it has been a national institution. It provides the people of west London with a national asset of very high quality. Some 25,000 people a year go there to be entertained and, in the summer particularly, the people of the somewhat deprived parts of my constituency have only that place to go to follow some cultural activity.
Many elderly people in my constituency make Kneller Hall their summer home. When they go there, they enjoy walking in the gardens. They like listening to the music, and they know people who have been associated with Kneller Hall and the Royal Military School, the Royal Marines and so on. To those people, it is not only a sentimental attachment but a great service to their social well-being. It is for that reason that I stand before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully all the various options that he must consider. It is quite right that he should consider those options carefully before he reaches a decision.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on his tenacity in securing the Adjournment debate on a subject that I know is close to his heart. I referred to him earlier in the week as my hon. and musical Friend. I should make it clear that that was meant very much as a compliment to the staunch way in which he has championed the cause of Kneller Hall for many years and kept the merits of that wonderful institution in the parliamentary and public eye, as well as in recognition, of course, of his own extraordinary musical talent and, if I may say so, that of his wife.
I recognise also the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), and I am grateful for his excellent brief contribution. I acknowledge his dedication to this cause, the presence and intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert)—a former Defence Minister.
I am only too pleased to place on record my own high regard for the musical skill of our Army bands and bandsmen and women, as well as those equally professional members of the Royal Marines and Royal Air Force bands. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the high regard in which our Army bands are held throughout the world—I could not but agree.
There could have been no better example of just why they are held in such high esteem, and no better demonstration of the skill, dedication and imagination of our Army bandsmen than that incredibly uplifting sight of the band of the Coldstream Guards marching on to the football stadium in Sarajevo on Sunday 20 March playing, appropriately, "Peacemakers".
When historians come to chronicle the 20th century, the images of that event will be hard to ignore. I certainly suspect that only a British Army band could have put on such a display—and I, for one, was most proud of it.
Kneller Hall is still the Army's centre of musical teaching It gives more than 120 Army bandsmen each year a foundation course in music theory and instrumental skill, while training a select number of experienced musicians on a full three-year bandmaster course. That qualifies them academically and practically to become bandmasters and possibly commissioned directors of music. On average, about 30 such students are resident at any one time.
The school also welcomes students from overseas—mainly from Commonwealth armies and police forces, teaching on average some 20 students each year on both bandsman and bandmaster courses. That is extremely helpful in building further links with friendly nations and other forces to which I referred.
In addition to the teaching functions carried out at the school, Kneller Hall houses the headquarters of Army music, in which the commandant has responsibilities as inspector of bands for the military and musical standards of 30 bands and more than 1,100 musicians.
My hon. Friend referred to the affection with which Kneller Hall is regarded in the local community, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth. If I include myself, there is a holy triumvirate of hon. Members present whose constituencies are close to Kneller Hall, and I know that many of the 25,000 people whom my hon. Friend said attended the last season of open-air concerts are my constituents—who would rightly expect me take this opportunity to place on record their own warm feelings about Kneller Hall, which I share entirely.
Only last year, I marvelled at the musicians' musical skill, laughed till I cried at their good humour, felt the hairs on my neck rise with the emotions they engendered, and cursed the aircraft noise at Heathrow that affected the concert so badly.
All that is confirmation of the reputation for excellence in military music that the Royal Military School of Music has throughout the world. Its motto—"Nulli secundus" —is most appropriate. and I assure my hon. Friends that the Government's respect and admiration for the important role that the school has played over the years continues undiminished.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made a number of points, with his customary vigour and volume, about the future of Army bands and Kneller Hall in particular. He was kind enough to give me notice of many of them, for which I thank him.
My hon. Friend's overriding concern is, as one would expect, the future prospects for Kneller Hall itself. He alluded to the defence costs study "Front Line First", which has been in train since last December. It is well known that the study was charged with examining all aspects of support to the front line. As my hon. Friend recognises, that has, quite properly, in spite of the recent review of Army music, included a scrutiny of military music in all three services.
A special study team—one of 33 such teams—was established to examine the subject. My hon. Friend may agree that in such a comprehensive review of the support services of our armed forces, no sacred cows should be safe from consideration.
Perhaps it would be helpful to my hon. Friend if I say a little about how the team approached its task. Its remit was to examine every aspect of military music, identify the requirement for music in the services and establish how it can most cost effectively be met.
The study examined in detail the needs of each services, operating and administrative costs, the balance between Regular and Reserve personnel, accommodation and training of bands men and women—including at Kneller Hall, and the operational roles performed by band personnel.
It is perhaps the last item on the list, the operational roles performed by band personnel, that is most often overlooked. I know that it is not overlooked by my hon. Friends, but perhaps I could dwell on it for a moment. As my hon. Friends know, bandsmen and women are not merely professional musicians in uniform; they also have an important operational role as medical orderlies. During Operation Granby, more than 800 personnel from 35 bands were deployed to the Gulf in that role.
Of the 34 bands remaining in the United Kingdom, all but two had teams of personnel deployed to airheads in the United Kingdom, in anticipation of the possible requirement to receive casualties from the Gulf. Also, members of the Duke of Wellington's regimental band are currently deployed to Bosnia in the medical role. I am sure that my hon. Friends would wish to join me in paying tribute to the important role played by bandsmen on both of those occasions.
Let me assure the House that the defence costs study fully recognises the significance of the role which military music plays in military life, for all of the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. I know that he will appreciate that I am not in a position to discuss the proposals that have emerged from that study, or indeed from any of the other defence costs studies. The proposals number well into the hundreds and are at present under detailed consideration by officials. I can say, however, that formal recommendations are to be put to Ministers very shortly, but it will take some time before decisions are reached.
We have already told the House of our intention to make an announcement on the broad outcome of "Front Line First" in July. Although I cannot predict what the final outcome will be, I can assure my hon. Friends that we will take full account of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has so persuasively set out in reaching any decisions affecting military music in general and Kneller Hall in particular.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hanley: May I just say that I fully take into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said, and I invite him to apply for an Adjournment debate at an appropriate time?
The final proposals emerging from the defence costs study will be subject to full consultation in the normal way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham also referred to the early-day motion of 1986—No. 397—that I, among others, signed. I make no apology for signing it, and I still stand by a great many of the sentiments it contained. In particular, I see no inconsistency in the statement made at the time that the requirement for a defence school of music, as well as its possible location, should be looked at afresh in the light of the latest facts. The defence costs study has been considering alternative proposals in the light of the latest facts in many areas—including music.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend accept from one accountant to another that one of the major concerns of our constituents will be the credibility of the financial assumptions in the decision-making proposals put to Ministers? Will he ensure that as many of those financial assumptions as possible are published, as high security is not at risk in this instance?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The decisions reached by Ministers, following the recommendations of the various teams that have been undertaking the tasks in the defence costs studies, must be credible and must be available for inspection. When we announce the decisions, they will be supported by sufficient information for a proper consultation process to be undertaken. I cannot give an exact assurance to my hon. Friend that every financial detail will be published, but I assure him that I will try to carry out the preparation of the


work and the announcement of our decisions with the skill in which my hon. Friend is well versed and which I still hope that I possess.
I should like to assure my hon. Friends that I set great store by the quality of our military bands and believe that they will continue to be the envy of the rest of the world for many years to come. But what is being considered is how we sustain that quality by assessing how our

musicians are trained, where they are trained and at what cost. Not even my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham would seek to justify needless cost which puts in jeopardy the effectiveness of our front-line fighting capacity.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham for his important contribution.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Four o'clock.